Re: GNU "Moral Codes"

[mike3]

On Aug 25, 2:48 am, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Aug 21, 4:08 pm, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> The GPL is not a "tit for tat" license: the upstream author gets
> >> nothing from the recipient by defaul, nor does he have any right to.
> >> But any further downstream recipients get all the rights the GPL
> >> guarantees.  The GPL ensures that no recipient gets crippled software,
> >> software which can't be serviced.  It is the software engineering
> >> equivalent of placing good schematics inside of any sold appliance.
>
> >> So the GPL is "tat for tat" rather than "tit for tat": it is not
> >> reciprocal but seminal.
>
> > Oh, so you can go and profit off of the other person's work,
> > _provided_ that it stays free and GPL.
>
> Not really.  You can keep the result all to yourself, profit from its
> use, and let nobody have it.
>

? I don't understand.

I can keep what result, the other person's work, what?

> > I was meaning trying to make it proprietary.  And was agreeing that
> > that was an obvious no-no.
>
> No, that's perfectly allowed.  What _isn't_ allowed is distribution of
> versions under proprietary terms to third parties.  All the copies of
> the modified work are your own physical property.  You are just not
> allowed to license this to _third_ parties under terms not compatible
> with the GPL.
>

What I was saying was an obvious no-no was exactly what
you were saying is a no-no. I was saying distribution of versions
of someone else's GPL code under propietary terms to third
parties was a no no, that's what I meant by "make it proprietary".

> --
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum