[email protected] Patrick, suppose somebody gets your code and implements improvements on it, and want to be paid for this, you would disallow somebody to charge for their work?
By restricting your software to be redistributed with paid improvements, you may be restricting its improvement, and achieving your goal, to help parents of autistic children. Your "free as in beer" version can easily spread in the mouth-to-mouth way, so I don't think you should be that affraid of the selling of unmodified version of your software. In any way, you won't be able to fix all the problems of the world. You can create a good piece of software, and help people. You can allow them to improve it and help people further. If you think you should find another license for your software, go ahead, but I hope you realize that you can help better and more people by using a free license and running the risk of somebody fooling some parent in buying it than releasing it with a proprietary license. Sorry for my bad english. Not a native speaker. Felipe. --- On Thu, 10/4/12, Robert Martinez <[email protected]> wrote: From: Robert Martinez <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s) To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, October 4, 2012, 7:55 AM On 04/10/12 12:37, luke.leighton wrote: > a non-free software license and also non-GPL licenses can be viewed > as coercion. you're forcing people to pay, rather than offering them > the opportunity to pay open-heartedly. I think you're getting him wrong here. Patrick wants to avoid that parents will *EVER* have to pay and fears the part of the GPL that allows that you can charge for the service of providing the software. Still I, too, think GPL is the way to go. You reach much more partents if you release it under the GPL - and even if some mean people trick parents into paying for your software: they still got your software that hopefully helps! You really have to ask yourself: Is your primary goal to provide parents with your software? Or is it more important to make sure they are never deceived? Imho the great potential of free software outweighs the risk of theoretical trickery. by far.
