From: Christian Neukirchen Date: 2005-10-03T05:01:42+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby licence... Kevin Brown writes: > On Sunday 02 October 2005 12:45, Christian Neukirchen wrote: >> 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. I'm not familiar with Transgaming... do you mean that only CVS is accessible but "proper" releases are not? > 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. This clause makes your system non-free, both to the GPL and the DFSG. Imagine I'd like to extend your program, but you don't accept my patches for reasons whatsoever. I can redistribute my extended program, but I/my users need to pay *you* for every distribution? Sorry, but this doesn't fit my mental model of free software. It more sounds like dictatorship of the initial author. Remember that free software also means you decline some of your rights for the good of everyone. >> 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?" But see, there is no other way. It's like the Pope saying there is the possibility of using condoms, in case you really don't want children. > Which is ironic as it implies that _free_ software should have > controls to FORCE it to STAY FREE Therefore the "viral" clause. > OR ELSE YOU EVIL CAPITALIST PIG, Except "capitalist" is inappropriate here, for reasons mentioned in an earlier post. :-) > which is in many ways as unfree as the very software I'm writing. If you think this is too "unfree", you are welcome to use a BSD-like license for your system. (But please don't let us go into *that* discussion.) > 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. These are fundamental rights they'd even have if you were Microsoft and sold them licenses of your software under their known EULAs. This is not what free software is about. You drop Freedom #2 and #3: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > # The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). > # The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements > to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). And it goes on: > Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or > without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for > distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things > means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for > permission. These points are very important for free software, the concept doesn't work with your suggested changes. >> 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, Yes, we are. And please excuse if this post sounds zealoty, but I need to make a point. > 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. As mentioned, you take away half of the freedoms the GPL grants! It sure makes a difference. > Stallman likes to talk about a gas tax being better than toll > booths. I agree. All we want is a gas tax. I didn't hear that comparision yet. And I'm sure the Germans would disagree ;-) > I'm not going to make people call and activate their product/enter > serial numbers/whatever, nor am I going to obfuscate the source. Thank you. Even if your system won't be free software, the users will be thankful for this. [Please reply privately if you think it's getting off-topic.] -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org