Hi Ramana
I am not good at writing in as few words as possible...
"You want people to use your software (and derivatives?) without paying
for it."
Yes, without having to pay for it.
With both projects, If the software was to be free as in beer forever,
it would solve problems. Parents wouldn't get screwed over in the first
and I could make money selling support as long as I could also insure
that everyone who used the software knew that I wrote it in the second.
If I offered them both as closed source but free of charge then I "code
in" messages to the end users. If someone sold them the software and
then once they started to use, it, it said it was to remain free (as in
cost) forever that would cut into their revenue model :) I could also
sue the people who sold it
I've seen GIMP posted on Ebay for sale. I don't want this sort of thing
to be done. I want to grant people the right to use it for free and to
enforce that in court.
I have to take my kids out to the mall but I will respond to emails
again soon, thanks for the feedback... BIAB
Is it okay if I post my last response to you to the list?
On 12-10-03 12:58 PM, Patrick wrote:
For the second project I think GPL is the right license: by law
anyone using its code or part of the code must show the "based upon
$project created by $you" line, also you can get revenue by both
selling binaries (with the source attached) and providing support.
For the first one GPL is also good as no one can legally "close" the
code.
Hi Marco
Here is the thing though.... Most parents don't know what close or
open sourced even is. If I distribute it as a close source application
and have a notice pops up that states this software is only to be
distributed free of charge, if you paid for it contact so-and-so so
that we can defend your rights. That ought to be a deterrent.
Also keep in mind that FSF approved licenses are about freedom not
about money ("free as in free speech" not "free as in free beer").
I do know about this but I don't think that FSF licences protect
communities only end users.
It's not okay to say that anyone in Indonesia can use this software
for whatever use they desire and never have to give back anything but
but it is okay to say that Walmart can do this, if they only use it
internally. Yet Walmart is economically larger then this country of
237M people:
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0718-worlds_largest.html
GPL is very wrong for me, I hope to find other licences that will
protect the charitable nature of the first project and protects my
right to be acknowledged in the second project. The GPL will do this
to some degree in the licence but how many end users read the licence,
I want something that will have to be displayed to them
On 12-10-03 01:32 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote:
I don't understand how making your software non-free is solving your
problems.
These are the problems you said you have:
1. You want people to use your software (and derivatives?) without
paying for it.
2. You want credit for your software, in particular, that any people
using it can easily find out that you wrote it.
(If I have got them wrong, or missed anything, please correct.)
Please explain how you can solve these two problems by making your
software non-free (in as few words as you can).
Please also restate briefly why you cannot solve these two problems
while also making your software free.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Patrick
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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 !
