"rights" and "freedoms"

[L. Peter Deutsch]

>> [...] things that FSF considers anathema, such as a right to be reasonably
>> compensated for one's work.
> 
> This is false.  All the GPL says (or any software license) is: "If you
> play with our ball, play by our rules."  Your own work is your own,
> nor are you prevented from being paid for creating works

You are not prevented from being paid *once* for creating a GPLed work, but
the GPL prevents you from licensing your work in a manner that compensates
you in proportion to how widely the work is used, since it prevents you (or
anyone) from forbidding unpaid copying.

FSF is not hostile to free software businesses, only to allowing authors (as
opposed to distributors) to receive proportionate compensation for GPLed
software.  Dual licensing (leveraging the unattractiveness of the GPL for
combined works) does allow authors to obtain proportionate compensation, but
FSF (or at least rms) wishes authors didn't do that.

I find FSF's position on proportionate compensation quite clear and
philosophically consistent; I don't like some of its consequences.

> that contain GPLed components.

The GPL requires that you place the entirety of any such work under the GPL.
Saying "works that contain GPLed components" attempts to make it appear that
authors have more freedom in this respect than they actually do.

-- 

L. Peter Deutsch         |       Aladdin Enterprises :::: ghost at aladdin.com
203 Santa Margarita Ave. | tel. +1-650-322-0103 (AM only); fax +1-650-322-1734
Menlo Park, CA 94025     |        http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/index.html