<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Christian Hufgard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pp@christian-hufgard.de">pp@christian-hufgard.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">>> > When people share copies, it does take anything away from anyone, so<br>
>> > there is no loss. Also, the artists are not doing work specifically<br>
>> > for these people. So there is no occasion to "compensate" anyone.<br>
>><br>
>> Technically not. But you use something without compensating the creator.<br>
>> What would you say, if someone uses your code without releasing the new<br>
>> software under GPL again? You have no loss in money, there ist just less<br>
>> free code than if he had released it under GPL again.<br>
>><br>
> If you modify a GPL software and you don't release the code nor the<br>
> executable, to anyone but you, that's fine under the GPL license.<br>
<br>
</div>I meant the case, that you modify gpl code and release the new code as yours.</blockquote><div><br>Software is different from other copyrighted works like songs: software has the executable and the code, music has just the song (every musician gets the "code" just by listening to the song). I don't know why you compare the executable/code thing to the music /money thing. It makes no sense: the executable/code problem deals with freedom, the music/money thing deals just with money. Money and freedom are not the same thing at all.<br>
</div></div><br><br>