> I'm getting tired of explaining why this kind of reasoning is wrong. Specifically, your statement about how "In his world, the creators of things starve." No, for the thousandth time, it's not true at all.
> There is nothing standing in the way of content creators selling GPL code, and even keeping it private until its been bought. Full stop.
You appear to be arguing that it is not expressly forbidden by the GPL, but this is not what api said. There is something standing in the way of content creators selling GPL code — practicality. When you can only sell one license to the software ever, it's really impractical to build a business around selling that software. In fact, I cannot think of any companies that create GPL-licensed software and actually make their money selling that GPL-licensed software.
"I cannot think of any companies that create GPL-licensed software and actually make their money selling that GPL-licensed software."
RedHat, Suse, I just got done telling you Samsung, Zentyal, just off the top of my head, tons more if you just did a quick search. Note that sometimes it's bundled with hardware, or it's the support that makes them *the most8 money, but quite often they still make money selling the software too, so lets put this myth about practicality to rest.
I think you know full well that those are not at all what I meant. You can say "they still make money selling the software too," but that's what they call damning with faint praise. I made some money selling my old car, but I don't say I have a car-selling business. Those are hardware companies and service companies, not companies that primarily sell software.
The simple fact is that selling free software has not been shown to be a viable business model. There are businesses that have shown the value of using free software, and businesses that have made good money supporting free software, but creating and selling free software just doesn't appear to be something you can look to for income. And that's what api was talking about when he said "In [Stallman's] world, the creators of things starve."
> There is nothing standing in the way of content creators selling GPL code, and even keeping it private until its been bought. Full stop.
You appear to be arguing that it is not expressly forbidden by the GPL, but this is not what api said. There is something standing in the way of content creators selling GPL code — practicality. When you can only sell one license to the software ever, it's really impractical to build a business around selling that software. In fact, I cannot think of any companies that create GPL-licensed software and actually make their money selling that GPL-licensed software.