jacob navia <jacob@nospam.org> writes:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> vipvipvipvip.ru@gmail.com said:
>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Everyone makes mistakes - what counts
>>>> is not that we make them, but how we react when we discover them.
>>> Well, what options where available at the time?
>>
>> If, at the time he made the mistake, he was aware that he was making
>> the mistake, presumably he wouldn't have made the mistake. Your
>> followup is absurd.
>>
>
> Well... yes
>
> I thought that redistributing the source would cover my compliance with
> the GPL. But the GPL people say that if I distribute (with source)
> the GPL code, the lcc-win compiler must be GPLed too.
>
> I am not a lawyer and prefer to avoid legal battles that I
> can't afford anyway.
>
> The same for the linux distribution that has costed me a lot
> of work. I thought that just using a GPLed binaries would not
> mean that my code is forced to change its license. Apparently
> that is the case. I have to write now a module to write
> elf format object files. This will be a lot of work.
>
> I can't put my code under the GPL because I live from my
> work. In a perfect world, I would give my work for free
> and I would go to the supermarket and get food for free,
> my home would have been given to me for free, etc. My kids
> would get everything they need for free, etc.

Theoretically you can still earn money from the GPLd code as people are
"honour bound" to pay a license to use it if you so state.

Unfortunately in the real world it doesn't happen that often unless the
user really needs support.

> This is apparently not the case. My supermarket is not GNU
> and I have to pay for their goods.