On 12-10-03 05:50 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote:
Another attempt at a summary, and a plea for focussed clarification.
Patrick has written/will write two pieces of software, A and B.
Patrick's wishes:
1. Users of A do not pay for using it.
2. Users of B know that Patrick wrote B.
Patrick's assumptions:
1. His wishes are best realised by his choice of software licenses.
2. People need significant help finding gratis copies, especially
when non-gratis copies exist.
3. People need significant help finding the original author of the
software they are using.
Much of the rest of this thread is trolling. Please don't continue it.
Patrick, do you have any other relevant wishes or assumptions, or is
this an accurate summary?
Everyone else, write specific ways to realise his wishes and/or
specific inaccuracies in his assumptions or faults of reasoning therefrom.
this is perfect, thank you.
Please help. I am not trying to troll, I am asking for help
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Patrick
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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 !
