Ramanraj K wrote:
If authors do not make claims to royalty either under the GPL or under
Section 53A, then it indeed shows their magnanimity and strong
aversion to copyrights - characterised rightly as evil by Macaulay.
Free Software developers releasing their works under the GPL, legally
oblige lincensees to give back code in return if they modify the work
- but never any money.
Free Software is a charity - let there please not be any confusion
about its true nature. The author makes a voluntary dedication and
any organisation focused solely on Free Software would largely be a
charitable organisation.
proprietary in nature, and have nothing to do with Free Software.
Suppose linux kernel developers say, well redistribute the code, but
do so without calling it 'linux', then how would do market know it is
'linux' that is being packaged and sold? It is quite silly to make
such claims and such terms and conditions only tend to give Free
Software a false proprietary color. Every time a free software
developer fall into the "trademark" trap, the propreitary camp scores
a point.
There are a number of legitimate ways of using trademarks, but naming
the computer program under a free license with a trademark is not one
of them.