> This is absolutely incorrect. The GPL is
> anything BUT "upfront."
Wrong. The GPL is remarkably easy to read,
and quite clear, for a legal document.
> In fact, its preamble is intentionally
No, it's not.
You may believe what you want, but the preamble
is not deceptive.
Surprisingly large numbers of people, however,
do not understand that the word "free" has
more than one definition. You may be one
> It states that the purpose of the license
> is to promote "freedom,"
And, it does so admirably. Due to the GPL,
my freedoms are very well protected.
> when in fact its purpose is to deny
> freedom --
A bald, inaccurate and totally unsupported
The purpose of the GPL is indeed to protect
freedom, your belief otherwise not with standing.
> and, by doing so, destroy programmers
> of commercial software and their businesses.
Wrong again. The GPL is not designed to
destroy commercial software and the software
It MAY eventually change the software business
model . . . but it will not destroy it.
A mechanic gets paid per hour of work. There
is absolutely no reason why software producers
cannot be paid the same way. And as such, there
is absolutely no reason why that software cannot
be licensed under the GPL, since after you get
paid, you're done with it.
The new business model would be, however, rather
different from the existing model, where a
software producer can work for a fixed amount
of time, then coast for years afterwards.
While not changing the cost and functionality
of software much at all, a model where software
producers get paid for their WORK, not because
they own a piece of software, would make the
competitive playing field much fairer, and
much less fragmented by proprietary file
formats and networking protocols.
Or would you prefer a software-like model
in your automotive braking systems, where
everytime you hit the pedal, you gotta pay
your mechanic again?