Except of that, you should think about it as a society. There’s a need for hardly-paying job in the market. If you allow such low paying jobs, then someone will *always* have a problem. Do you think we should raise the minimal wages? Do you think that in most family, either the husband or the spouse should work in a well-paying job?

(Thanks for pinging me BTW, your blog didn’t do that. There are WP add-ons that supports reply notifications by email I think see blog.shemesh.biz for what Shachar uses, there’s a list in a sidebar. It’s http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/subscribe2/)

Essentially the same answer applies also to the grandmother.

Conclusion: what I said at the end of my original post - “make it easier for them to train for a better paying occupation” - applies to both real cases. Not providing them with enough money for this purpose is, in my eyes, real stinginess.

A son to 10 children family. The father is ill, and cannot work any more. The son is working at non-academic works (obviously, he can’t afford it, both in terms of time and money). His low wages doesn’t cover the costs of his family’s living, so he asks for charity at night, after work.

What about the other real case?

A grandmother of my friend is OLA from russia. She usually wash floors for living, but this is hardly enough, and I assume that in a few years she might not be able to work in such a highly physical job.

It’s easy to criticize poor people as “lazy bums” from the softness of your sofa, but reallity is alot more complciated.

BTW, ping to my mail when you reply, I’m not sure I’ll remember to recheck it.

Truth is, I was sure it would fail, I just didn’t imagine it would happen so catastrophically…

This is the first elections campaign where I absolutely can’t condone not voting, or voting for a sectarian party, because wasted votes will just become another vote for Bibi or maybe even Liberman, and you know what those shmucks think about civil rights and helping the edges of society

to have convenient access to comments made by people, I would need to obtain “free” subscription to TechRepublic

So . . . should writers just decide that TR’s community members and other readers aren’t worthy to read about licensing models other than TechRepublic’s publishing and membership policy? Has it occurred to you that writing an article published at TR doesn’t mean the writer choose the licensing and membership policy? What exactly are you trying to imply? Does the membership policy somehow invalidate the actual statements made in the article?

can you cite an example of monopolist behavior enabled by having the software released under GPL? I mean in the classical sense - not letting other people/corporations compete over the same market,and being able to charge monopolistic prices.

If you want general examples, read the linked SOB entry. If you want very specific, direct relationships between GPL use and higher prices (for instance), you might want to consider that proving such direct relationships is extremely difficult.

people won’t pay the price, which I want for the right to use my software - if I release it under BSD rather than GPL/LGPL.

Please be more precise about that “price”, because so far I don’t see how your statement is true — so I must be assuming the wrong “price”.

I don’t see a real contradiction between what I said and what you said. I already agreed that it may make sense to release security software under more liberal licenses

Maybe I misread what you said, but . . .

it should be determined on case by case basis.

I disagree. It’s my opinion that a “default allow” approach should be taken to spreading secure software.

1. GPL being a tool of monopolists - can you cite an example of monopolist behavior enabled by having the software released under GPL? I mean in the classical sense - not letting other people/corporations compete over the same market,and being able to charge monopolistic prices.

2. Very simple - people won’t pay the price, which I want for the right to use my software - if I release it under BSD rather than GPL/LGPL.

3. I don’t see a real contradiction between what I said and what you said. I already agreed that it may make sense to release security software under more liberal licenses; although it should be determined on case by case basis.

1. The GPL is actually a tool of monopolists. Ironic — isn’t it?

2. I don’t see how something like the BSD license interferes with the kind of open source business model you discuss.

3. You might want to reconsider how you choose your licensing model for security software.