On 8/20/2011 10:26 PM, Byron Jeff wrote:
> Redhat and others sell service contracts, not software. One can (and=20
> many have) take a Redhat distribution, strip all the trademarked bits,=20
> and redistribute it without issue. See Centos as an example. People=20
> are paying for peace of mind, or the convenience of being able to pick=20
> up the phone and get help. But not for the software itself. BAJ

While I agree with you, it's all about adding value.  Redhat adds value=20
in that it is a known quantity.   A binary release from redhat carries a=20
certain amount of peace of mind.  No, you're not buying the software=20
*itself* but saying that you can't sell the software for more than a=20
miniscule amount is just plain wrong.  Take the GNU code, add value=20
(even if it is just in the form of testing and the resulting piece of=20
mind), and sell it.

Heck, even microchip gets away with selling GCC:=20
http://www.microchipdirect.com/productsearch.aspx?Keywords=3DSW006015

To get back to the original topic.

If you truly want no restrictions on something you release, release it=20
to the public domain, perhaps with a strong disclaimer of liability=20
accompanying the source code.

Otherwise you can go down the whole list of licenses or roll-your-own=20
'license', etc.  Which quickly devolves to a holy war.

-forrest


--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.