Rev/Livecode project and GPL Licenses

[Peter Brigham MD]

On Apr 17, 2011, at 7:15 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

> Peter Brigham wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 15, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> 
>>> Scott McDonald wrote:
>>>> Where I was getting it mixed up, was that I was equating selling
>>>> commercially with not making the source code available.
>>>> 
>>>> But of course, they are not the same thing.
>>> 
>>> Not exactly the same, but how many people pay for milk when they can get the cow for free?
>> 
>> Many, many people. If it means they don't have to milk the cow themselves, and feed it, and stable it, and call the vet when it's ill.... There's value added by the coder who puts something useful together and maintains it, even if the product is open license and could be hacked at will.
> 
> Can you think of three examples of software governed by the GPL has its
> development expenses met by sales of the software itself?
> 
> It seems most of the FOSS world is doing something very different....

I expect that you are right, and I actually don't know all the ins and outs of the licensing schemes, much less have any experience with choosing any of them. I guess I was just responding to the general point. How it plays out in practice I'll defer to you and others who know more.

-- Peter

Peter M. Brigham
pmbrig at gmail.com
http://home.comcast.net/~pmbrig

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're
different."
                -- Yogi Berra