I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet
if used commercially, the authors get a cut?
The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free
software philosophy.
...
I know this, and this is the single 'wrong' thing about free software in
the view on
Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user. It's not
about control by the author (except in specific limited respects). If
you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy.
Freedom is about giving up control. More freedom, less control. More
control,
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I know this, and this is the single 'wrong' thing about free software in
the view on many people (SDC, UUU, Alladin...) Putting the authors out
of the loop is silly and unfair.
If you don't like losing even that much of the ultimate control
Quoting dlw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Any attempt to regulate copyright rewards outside of contractual
privity is preempted by sec. 301 of the Copyright Act regardless of
the philosophical underpinnings of free as in 'freedom' software.
Oh, give it up, already.
As I'm sure you are well aware,
I must admit I'm somewhat sympathetic to Marius' aims, if not convinced about
the actual details.
Ideally, I would like to craft a dual license that says, in legalese, if you
don't pay, reciprocate; if you pay, you don't have to reciprocate. QED.
However like Marius I find the GPL and other open
However like Marius I find the GPL and other open source licenses inadequate to
express this, since most if not all allow certain situations to avoid
reciprocation e.g. internal use, web services. I should think GPL and friends
were never designed to be the bad cop part of a good cop, bad cop
dlw scripsit:
Any attempt to regulate copyright rewards outside of
contractual privity is preempted by sec. 301 of the
Copyright Act regardless of the philosophical
underpinnings of free as in 'freedom' software.
That turns out not to be the case.
I am attracted to the philosophical
Sam Barnett-Cormack scripsit:
You buy, or are given legally, a book. Now, copyright stops you from
doing most things with it, of course, including fanfic, strictly.
FWIW, the case that text-only fanfic actually constitutes a derivative
work is extremely shaky. The leading case is about comic
All, esp. Sam:
It irks me that some companies or individuals could use open-source software for
profit under internal use, and not pay the original author. Under open source, I
then have two choices:
1. Offer the software for free under GPL. Then if no-one redistributes it but uses it
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Ideally, I would like to craft a dual license that says, in legalese,
if you don't pay, reciprocate; if you pay, you don't have to
reciprocate. QED.
This clearly isn't the right mailing list to seek help with that. More
about that below.
10 matches
Mail list logo
