Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

BRM wrote:

Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could
take a 
GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute it internally
itself without ever contributing back to the community as a whole.
Likewise, it could also distribute that same project to its customers,
the source available to them and them alone. The community will may never
any changes from them; yet that is perfectly valid under all Open Source 
licenses - even the GPL.

Nothing forces people to work with the community. No license can do that.
please do yourself a favor and put that notion - the myth - aside.

So basically GPL is worth nothing because no one can force anybody to
contribute back?

Is that an argument in favor of convincing developers to use the Apache
license (because they aren't getting anything back anyway) or to simply stop
contributing to Open Source projects?

View this message in context:
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.