Hi! On 23 April 2013 06:32, George Standish <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd say the software in question fails freedom 0.
Its GPLv3 so I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion. > Their dual licensing model outlines what you can, and can't do, with this > free software (I believe they correctly use the term "open source"). > http://www.runrev.com/products/Open-Source/FAQs Like any other GPLv3 library, software that is built on top of this library must also be GPLv3. If you want to distribute a combined work, that includes GPLv3 parts and your own parts, under another license (such as a proprietary license, or probably a non-copyleft free software license) then you have to get another license for the GPLv3 parts - and this usually costs money. This business model is very straightforward, easy to operate, and is neutral to the software freedom movement (especially when the developer only ever distributes software to you under a free software license, either the GPL or a non-copyleft free software license) since it both enables public free software development (under the GPL) and also proprietary software development. The FSF doesn't raise money by 'selling out' the GPL for the copyrights it holds in this way, because it is totally dedicated the software freedom movement, but I think its ethically fine for a for-profit company to contribute to the movement in a neutral way that is more lucrative. > It is directly marketed for development of applications on non-free operating > systems. GCC is frequently used for development of applications on non-free operating systems and has been since the 1980s. > The software itself, is being developed using the non-free github service. I believe you can use the github service using only free software. A publishing service does not raise the same issues as software-as-a-service, and RMS wrote about this in the 'Distinguishing SaaS from Other Network Services' section of http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html > How is any of this a win for software freedom? It seems aimed at educating young people about software development, and the kickstarter page says it is adopted in 25% of high schools in Scotland. It will require them to release software they develop with the system under the GPLv3. That sounds like a big win to me :-) -- Cheers Dave
