From: Kevin Brown Date: 2005-10-03T04:16:27+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby licence... On Sunday 02 October 2005 12:45, Christian Neukirchen wrote: > Kevin Brown writes: > >> >> I work on commercial code... [*snip*] > >> > > >> > Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!! > >> > > >> > >> In case you didn't notice, the FSF is not opposed to commercial code, > >> but closed code. > > > > I didn't notice, as it's quite hard to sell software when one person can > > buy it and then give it away to everyone else for free with no legal > > consequences. > > FYI, Stallman made some money to get the FSF started by distributing > Emacs on tape. > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html I was already 100% aware of this, and the fact that they still have no problem selling the _distribution_ of free software. My point is that I see this as a problem, for instance in my current system. I'm not sure how much it will/won't sell. That's not my problem. The problem comes that I feel a much higher need to produce high quality software than to ensure it meets a license guideline. Thus, if I provide a way to distribute it, it will be a good way. While technically Transgaming meets GPL, it does so by giving you the code in an unuseful fashion. This system will be written in Ruby. Therefore they get the code when I distribute anyway. The only additional license requirement above the GPL is that when a copy goes between companies (this will not be of interest to individuals), that my company gets a _reasonable_ charge. I see this as being more valuable to the common good than what transgaming is doing, because if I were to distribute the source of my app, my company would require me to make it more adventageous for the customer to buy. > > Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for > > development. Don't waste it! > > It may be even possible (but the FSF surely doesn't encourage to) to > sell commercial licenses, cf. MySQL (though they are not the best > example). This is why I'm responding. It's the problem I have with the FSF and the like. It's 100% _POSSIBLE_. It's easy to do. Dual licensing even fits in the GPL. Whether that fits into the piles of ethics of above groups is the only question, but there was never a problem with the possibility of doing so. So it annoys me to no end when these groups refer to the possibility of a concept when they really mean "should we say this an ok usage of free software?" Which is ironic as it implies that _free_ software should have controls to FORCE it to STAY FREE OR ELSE YOU EVIL CAPITALIST PIG, which is in many ways as unfree as the very software I'm writing. Once they've bought my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their heart's content. If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we believe we deserve a cut. > I get the intent of the joke, but I think it is important to clarify > this issue. As do I. :-) I think DRM, Microsoft style licensing, and the like are very very dumb. We really are on the same team here, just that I feel people should be able to charge for ANY distribution of the software, and FSF/whoever feels only the first distribution of the software should be chargable. How this makes software free or not, I'm not really sure. Stallman likes to talk about a gas tax being better than toll booths. I agree. All we want is a gas tax. I'm not going to make people call and activate their product/enter serial numbers/whatever, nor am I going to obfuscate the source.