Gary MacDougall wrote:
>
> > No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on
> > the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
> > open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
> >
>
> Actually, your not legally bound to anything if you write "new" additional
> code, even if its dependant on something. You could consider it
> "propietary"
> and charge for it. There a tons of these things going on right now.
>
> Having dependancy on an open source product/code/functionality does not
> make one bound to make thier code "open source".
>
> > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
> > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what
> > ever you want.
>
> Thats a given.
>
> > I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use
> > it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand
> > how anyone could think differently.
>
> The issue isn't "fairness", the issue really is really trust. And from what
> I'm
> seeing, like anything else in life, if you rely solely on trust when money
> is
> involved, the system will fail--eventually.
>
> sad... isn't it?
That's why, as bad as it is, GPL is the best answer.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com