Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Harold <email@example.com> wrote:
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>>> I asked the developer about GPL contradictions in the past and was
>>> pointed to:
>> In that case I think the subject of this thread ought to be changed
>> to "Very disappointed and shocked by the Free Software Foundation"
>> But I suppose they need the money.
> The information on the web page states:
> "In exchange for an unconditional license of the single-point-in-time
> fork of the GPL source code, we agreed to pay royalty to the Free
> Software Foundation (FSF) on behalf of Matthias. In addition we agreed
> to pass along bug reports (and fixes) to Matthias so that anyone
> interested in fixing the GPL release might do so."
> Question is who "we" are. Does it include FSF, or is it something that
> Messrs Woodcock and van Best decided? If the latter, it's still
> illegal, as they don't have the right. I haven't seen anything from FSF
> on this, which would be a natural thing to post on the web site /if/ the
> FSF has granted a termination of the GPL for this application.
I don't know the FSF's regulations too well, but are you suggesting that
there was an agreement to fork a GPL 'mission' into a commercial one?
I know for a fact that 'mushrooming' a commercial extension from a
project that was committed to the GPL is immoral if not illegal at worst.
Imagine yourself publicly-funded or voluntarily-supported projects like
Apache and Firefox going commercial (READ: pricy) after their current
 Where the source is not publicly available hence not shared among the