Probably like Affero-License, you could introduce your own clause for your own Software. But you should make sure to give your license its own subname - More like Mani-GPL License.
This is in moral-practical perspective. I don't have much clues as to the legal matters, and so its better you check with the GPL experts. On 11/26/08, Mani A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Raj Mathur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It doesn't deprive users of anything. > > I do not agree to that. > >>To be quite frank, 99.9999% of >> users don't care what licence the software on a Linux CD falls under as >> long as it works for them and they can obtain and use it for free. > > In most western countries, the users are so aware that the only way > out for proprietary software companies is by way of corrupt, illegal > and unethical practices. > >> There have been and will continue to be pure FOSS Linux distributions, >> but you probably won't see them gaining much traction in the market. > > Market trends and the increasing income disparities in the population > indicate that users will only become more wary of trusting proprietary > closed source stuff and "proprietary closed source scientific > research". > > >> repository. Requiring a licence to prevent bundling of free and >> non-free software together seems like overkill. > > Such a license is required for producing truly trustworthy software. > With the changing nature of software, in future, I should expect such > a license to be a de facto requirement for any-sane-sense trust in > computing. > >> To sum up, people who care about FOSS principles will be able to sift >> out non-free software anyway. People who don't care about those >> principles will probably not use a pure-FOSS distribution at all. > > It is not just about choice and principles. > >>> Yes, GPL does say that. But most concepts of FOSS try to go beyond >>> that. > >> Wasn't it RMS who wrote v2 and approved v3 of the GPL? Are you saying >> that the concepts of FOSS extend far beyond RMS' vision? Be very >> careful! ;) > > RMS-sense FOSS is not the GPL. (The cited article is by RMS) > >> automatically. Make better software so that it is difficult or >> impossible for proprietary software companies to profit from leasing >> out software, work towards getting Governments to adopt FOSS and FOSS > > You are looking at only one of the ways used by proprietary software > companies. They expect to profit in various other ways. Most > proprietary closed source software companies have big stakes in the > organized crime industry too. The latter is apparently as advanced > (if not more) as any other industry. > > Best > > A. Mani > > -- > A. Mani > Member, Cal. Math. Soc > _______________________________________________ > Fsf-friends mailing list > [email protected] > http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends > -- Laxminarayan Kamath Ammembal http://lankerisms.blogspot.com (+91) 9945036093 _______________________________________________ Fsf-friends mailing list [email protected] http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends
