No you don't. You are proposing some kind of license model that *does*
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 02:05:19PM -0500, steve paesani wrote:
> > ... Developers charge for the actual work being done -- and once
> > payed,
> > availability of the results doesn't need to be restricted
> I agree.
restrict the availability of the results. Or at least you did originally
-- don't know what your current idea is.
What the FUCK are you talking about?
> True, free software is, by fact, a myth.
I guess you still don't even know what "free software" means. Must have
been illusory of me, expecting you to follow my advice; to actually take
a look at gnu.org, and *try* to understand what it is all about. Say
See, you agree that there is no problem :-P
> Lest developers have starved to death after 7 or so days of
> programming GPL licensed code they were sustained, somehow, by others
> which invariably equates to getting paid.
Oh? I don't think RedHat customers are complaining about lack of
> The organised and suastained suport however form much of the software
> written in this manner can be said by some if not may to be lacking.
I don't see how this differs from free software published under the GPL.
> I am for an open development compensation licence. It is
> straightforward, honest, and alleviates the what I and perhaps others
> might say is overcharging for running a 'market copy and print' shop,
> aka royalties, after development, maintenance and enhancement costs
> are covered.