Hi Michal
I think no legal solution will solve this problem completely (e.g. you
can buy illegally copied discs with proprietary software). A license
that allows selling and requires including appropriate attribution
notices could solve that misinformation problem in some cases. You want
parents to know about your software, in the past discs sold with
collections of software could be useful for this, while a no-selling
license would disallow making it known this way.
I don't really want to do this but I have thought about selling binaries
and source without makefiles. The code base will include Ada and I think
a lot of people will have trouble compiling it without a makefile(or GPR
file)
This seems sneaky and underhanded but might be a setup from shipping
fully closed source.
I am not blaming him but I think if he chose a different licence for
his work, things might have been different. What Torvalds did to him
was specifically allowed by the GPL his desire to have people refer to
the OS as GNU/Linus is based on honour and not law.
Would a legal solution be as effective as requiring making the source
code available? It clearly doesn't work for Chinese tablets with Linux.
China and India are my biggest fears. Thousands upon thousands of
laboratory jobs have been sent to these places. Here in Ontario, Canada
the biosciences sector is all but destroyed. It won't help to sell
closed source software to these markets but it could make sense to give
closed source and charge for support. This really seems like the only
viable option but I really want to find something that will make sense
and be source included though...
[0] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#require
I am not going to be able to live up to the 4 freedoms of software but I
hope I can live up to 3 !
