I should first say that while I did search before posting, I did not check the stickies in all the forums. If my questions can be answered by a sticky I would very much like to see it. So far my questions have only been mocked, and I do not appreciate that. I realize that my attitude may be sour, but my questions are quite perfectly reasonable, with one unfortunate and regretted exception.
I cannot decide whether to enraged at the suggestion that Linux is shareware, or amused at the thought of Red Hat Enterprise being open source. I think I am a bit of both. That is nothing short of absurd.
You have linked to a good read. I am sorry to see that you've misread it, though it may not be all your fault. The aim of that article was to define 'free software', however that is going about it backwards, and while it does work it is not the easiest way. Since we already know that Limewire is licensed under the GPL, we need only explain software that matches that description. That is done here. ->
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html If you read that correctly, you should see that licensing something under the GPL does in fact make it 'free speech.'
When I spoke of profits, I was talking about the money paid for the pro version. However, as you have said that the pro version is not open source, clearly this is irrelevant as I cannot help develop it.
I belive you have answered my question about the use of the funds satisfactorily. I regret my oversight of the two posted links, and the likely possibility that I asked that question in more of a jousting attitude than in good sense.
Again, for emphasis, GPL'd does indeed mean that something is both free beer and free speech. It is completely and utterly free in all respects. There is no way around it except to avoid distributing software under the GPL.
Upon going back to my first post to find my other questions, I noticed that they should have been easier to find. Forgive me for writing such a large and messy paragraph. If I could go back and edit it, I would. These questions I consider every bit as important as the others, for it is these matters which keep me from using Limewire.
Quote:
|
What are these marketing gimmicks about 'better search results' and 'turbo-charged download speeds'? I couldn't find any info anywhere on how such feats are accomplished. Surely it is well known that an experienced eye is trained to view such claims with EXTREME SCEPTICISM until they are explained. In fact, where Limewire once gained my instant trust due to it's mere association with the GPL, I am now as reluctant to use it as I am of any other p2p client. I did eventually give it a try, but the shareware-like popup asking me to purchase a pro version and having a 'later' option in place of 'no' was the last straw. Limewire is off my computer and on my s***list until somebody does some explaining.
|
In addition, after hearing that the pro version is not licensed under the GPL, I have another serious concern. I will again use this article for aid. ->
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html I encourage anyone to read that entire article if they have the time, however, only the first line is absolutely necessary if you trust me to appropriately take it out of context. Below I have quoted the first line plus one other statement.
Quote:
Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.
...
When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away.
|
Here we see the beauty of the GNU GPL. Anyone taking a piece of code licensed under the GPL and charging for a modified or appended version of that code is in violation of the license agreement. Nobody is exempt from this - not even those who wrote the original code. If the pro version of Limewire is a modified version of the basic version which is licensed under the GNU GPL, then those responsible for charging for it's distribution are in violation of the GNU GPL. Since I cannot logically claim to truly know, I will ask: Is Limewire 'pro' a modified version of the Limewire 'basic' code, and is this not a violation of the GNU GPL? I hope everyone will understand that I am not against supporting such responsible persons for their effort. However, I am a firm believer in donations and believe they are the solution in situations such as that which this may or may not turn out to be.
For anyone following along, I provide the following reading material for further understanding. This is the story of a case where a company took and modified a piece of software which was licensed under the GPL. They then offered this code, along with technical support, for a fee. That was enough to cause disturbance, but then they even attempted to stop 'piracy' of their modified code, and that is when the fun began. Here is the story as recorded by one offering this 'pirated' code for download. (notice that to this day nobody has been successful in requiring him to cease distribution) ->
http://wrt54g.thermoman.de/