subject:"\[libreplanet\-discuss\] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence$s$"


Hi Everyone

I hope this post won't upset anyone.

I have been going around in circles with free software licences for a 
few years now.


I have posted to FSF on IRC and pretty much received a message of GPL is 
the way to go for nearly everyone including me.


Unfortunately it is not right for me and I am almost certain all FSF 
approved licences will not meet my needs. I am seriously considering 
shipping completely closed source software as I am losing hope of 
finding a source included one that will work right for me.


There are two software projects I am working on. One is software to help 
parents and therapists working with autistic and speech delayed children 
to organize data.


It's still in the planning stage but once complete, I do not want it to 
be sold but to be free as in beer forever. If I understand things 
correctly to be a FSF approved licence, the licence must allow for 
resale, I won't allow this. Parents of autistic kids are already under 
enormous stress and most won't end up knowing there was a free as in 
beer alternative. parisites will swoop in an screw over the parents by 
sellign them the software.


I am attracted to the Reciprocal Public License before the 1.5 
modification but no one is using it and that worries me. It is also not 
right for the next project...



I also have a project for controlling scientific instrumentation and 
crunching data. It's a for profit venture.


I need a revenue model. I could give it away and offer paid support or 
sell it and also provide paid support.


Here is a rather upsetting thing. again sorry if I am upsetting 
anyone.


I really appreciate all that RMS has done for me and so many other 
computer users. He has given so much but I think he has ended up hurt by 
the same people he helped.


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.


I want permanent credit for my work with the scientific instrument 
control project. If someone else uses the code i want them to have to 
display to the user that I was the one who started the project at a 
specific font and for a specific time period. This way if other 
companies want to offer paid support, the end users will still know that 
I was the one that wrote it and i can provide better support for it. If 
RMS did something like this I think he would be much better off now.


Is there any licences that could meet one or more of these objectives?

Thanks for reading-Patrick

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

2012-10-03 Thread Michał Masłowski

 It's still in the planning stage but once complete, I do not want it
 to be sold but to be free as in beer forever. If I understand things
 correctly to be a FSF approved licence, the licence must allow for
 resale, I won't allow this. Parents of autistic kids are already under
 enormous stress and most won't end up knowing there was a free as in
 beer alternative. parisites will swoop in an screw over the parents by
 sellign them the software.

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 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.

 I want permanent credit for my work with the scientific instrument
 control project. If someone else uses the code i want them to have to
 display to the user that I was the one who started the project at a
 specific font and for a specific time period. This way if other
 companies want to offer paid support, the end users will still know
 that I was the one that wrote it and i can provide better support for
 it. If RMS did something like this I think he would be much better off
 now.

GPL3 allows something similar in 5d and 7b.

GNU/Linux is a different issue: it's a collection of separate works (the
FSF also considers it improper to have made such a naming
restriction [0]).

[0] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#require


pgpPKNlbf2hLo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

2012-10-03 Thread Ramana Kumar

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 patr...@spellingbeewinnars.orgwrote:

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#requirehttps://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 !

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

Rudolf said
 The only way to guarantee that your name will appear prominently in the
 user interface is to use a different license when dealing with businesses.

Not really. Attribution is an optional feature in Section 7 of GPLv3.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

I just realized that this list seems to be set up so that relies are 
sent as private messages. i was hoping to keep the discussion on list.


I hope you don't mind me posting this Thomas.



Well,

I'm aware of problem one person has pay for a Dia cdrom copy, and she 
didn't aware it was available for free on Internet: the reseller simply 
didn't mention the name of software but a free version of Visio (which 
is absolutely a lie: MS-Visio is convenient for business-plans 
presentations and alike but not for a technical schematic of any kind, 
while Dia produces less eye-candy material but highly readable, even 
with a projector, and has coding connectors).


Nothing prevents a GPL'ed software to be sold, provided sources can 
comes with no extra cost.


Anyway, whatever proprietary or free license you'll use, anywhere, 
anytime, someone can ether do a robbery.


About publicity, VIM have publicity for a donation to help children of 
Uganda (:help iccf) and nobody would left out that even if its outside 
license terms. On the other hand, Bram Moolenaar (why did I typed Braad 
Molinar?) didn't asked for his name to be known, and it is :)


On second project:

depending on needed expertise to adapt software to instrumentation, you 
can earn money for that (and/or training course with or without 
accreditation/enlistment).


That model is working well for Koha SIGB, where Libre support is 
offered for fee, there is code feedback from integrators, and I think 
there is no restriction of any kind on support/selling: all involved 
earn enough money.


See also PostgreSQL support model, which has a license far less 
restrictive than GPL, also about RDBMS the Ingres proprietary/Libre 
swaps (I'm unsure how Sybase/MS SQLServer from forked).


HTH,
TH













Hi Thomas

No one has screwed over Bram and the Ugandan kids yet but if the 
opportunity arrives someone will. I think that GPL/BSD/MIT or any number 
of licences work well for widely deployed, infrastructure like projects 
but I also doubt that these projects really generate that much money 
though...


If VIM was source included but people had to pay for it, lots of Ugandan 
kids would have more food.


I could see Google giving a little money to the VIM project as they 
probably use it but in my case I think few labs would contribute back 
any money, especially the ones outside of N. America. I think they would 
just fork the code and do whatever they wanted with it. i also don't 
think I am so special that they could not find some other programmer to 
continue the project without me.


About the training This is another weak point in the GPL. I don't 
have the advertising revenue for people to know that I wrote it. I am up 
against companies that have billions in revenue. If they fork the code 
and tell people they are the best people to offer support, they will be 
believed and people will think I am a liar.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)


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.

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).
---

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

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

Patrick said:

 Parents of autistic kids are already under 
 enormous stress and most won't end up knowing there was a free as in 
 beer alternative. parisites will swoop in an screw over the parents by 
 sellign them the software.

It's good that you're concerned that people might be taken advantage of but I
think your concerns are unfounded. There is remarkable self-correcting power in
the world. If someone is charging too much for a copy of the software someone
else will come in and undercut them by offering the same software at a lower
cost (maybe even free) and if the price is a big problem word *will* get around
so it isn't necessary for the license to mandate that the software be
distributed at no cost.

This is also discussed in Selling Free Software [1], specifically the Will a
higher distribution price hurt some users? section.

As an example, internet access isn't available everywhere and so the requirement
to distribute it at no cost means that I couldn't give copies to people for,
say, $5 each on CD to cover my costs of buying and mailing CDs because that's
not without cost.

Not only is distributing for a fee not a problem that you need to worry about
for the reasons I stated but mandating that there be no cost could also be a
hindrance to others that want to help.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

Patrick
 
 GPL is very wrong for me

This isn't actually a GPL issue. Any free software license that you select --
whether it's copyleft or not -- must by definition [1] allow for people to
distribute copies for a fee if they want to.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

 I hope to find other licences that will protect the charitable nature of 
 the first project

I wouldn't call proprietary software to be charitable. Rather it's quite the
opposite.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)


Hi Rudolf


Since you are distributing the code yourself you can offer the binary 
and sources for free. If a competitor wants to sell your software it 
is *still* available from your own website.




Yes but this is where the advertising dollars matter. If no one knows it 
originally came from me, I look like the copycat.


You're trying to clamp down on competition and that can't be done with 
the gpl.




I really don't like the GPL ! The only family of licences that are worse 
are BSD and friends. GPL is good to the end user, that's great but 
hurtful to charitable oriented communities and small businesses that 
can't compete with large ones. BSD is even worse as it allows the 
derivative code to hurt end users too. Both make developers unpaid 
employees of mega corporations like Apple and Google.


The nice thing is that any competitors will have to offer an enticing 
value-add to the product and make the source code for that available 
to others under the gpl. Or they have to work really hard and spend 
money on a sales team to convince parents to buy their version of your 
software (of course their version will be the same as your software, 
it would be too expensive to both enhance the product and also sell it).


There's no reason to be fearful of this.


Yes there is, again advertising dollars.


You will be credited for the software you create in the copyrights 
file or the license file or in every source code file. If you use the 
gpl then any changes someone makes have to be licensed under the gpl 
as well.




Only the competitors forking my code will see this


The only way to guarantee that your name will appear prominently in 
the user interface is to use a different license when dealing with 
businesses.




If I offer two streams what's to stop the business from using the 
non-commercial version?


Most businesses will not like the idea of selling or modifying gpl 
software so they'll be open to paying for a different license to be 
used and in that contract you can include the clause that credit to 
you must be displayed in the user interface.




I am not so special that they have to go to me.

I do appreciate the feedback, sorry if this is too negative. This thread 
is really a last ditch effort. I don't want to go closed source but FSF 
licences don't work for me. I am hoping to find another source included 
license that will work.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)


On 12-10-03 02:38 PM, Jason Self wrote:

Patrick
  

GPL is very wrong for me

This isn't actually a GPL issue. Any free software license that you select --
whether it's copyleft or not -- must by definition [1] allow for people to
distribute copies for a fee if they want to.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html


I hope to find other licences that will protect the charitable nature of
the first project

I wouldn't call proprietary software to be charitable. Rather it's quite the
opposite.
This is FSF dogma. How is it charitable to sell software that would 
otherwise have been free to people in dire need of support. The four 
freedoms do not liberate everyone. There is still the blight of crooks 
that are an oppressive force. The GPL specifically allows this. Please 
help me find another licence that will help me to help people.


P.S I understand that not all everyone has internet access but everyone 
bidding on Ebay for free-software-turned-scam does.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 16:33 -0400, Patrick wrote:
 Please 
 help me find another licence that will help me to help people.
 
 
This is an FSF mailing list. You will not find anyone to help you find a
non-free license to use.


-- 
Sent from Ubuntu


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 16:29 -0400, Patrick wrote:
On 12-10-03 01:51 PM, Jason Self wrote:
Patrick said:

Parents of autistic kids are already under
enormous stress and most won't end up knowing there was a free as in
beer alternative. parisites will swoop in an screw over the parents by
sellign them the software.
It's good that you're concerned that people might be taken advantage of but
I
think your concerns are unfounded. There is remarkable self-correcting
power in
the world. If someone is charging too much for a copy of the software
someone
else will come in and undercut them by offering the same software at a lower
cost (maybe even free) and if the price is a big problem word *will* get
around
so it isn't necessary for the license to mandate that the software be
distributed at no cost.

This is also discussed in Selling Free Software [1], specifically the Will
a
higher distribution price hurt some users? section.

As an example, internet access isn't available everywhere and so the
requirement
to distribute it at no cost means that I couldn't give copies to people for,
say, $5 each on CD to cover my costs of buying and mailing CDs because
that's
not without cost.

Not only is distributing for a fee not a problem that you need to worry
about
for the reasons I stated but mandating that there be no cost could also be a
hindrance to others that want to help.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Hi Jason

With all due respect look that this:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=gimp+software_sacat=0_odkw=gimp_osacat=0_from=R40

or this:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=openoffice+software_sacat=0_odkw=inkscape+software_osacat=0_from=R40

or any of dozens of other projects.

Ask the people who wrote them, if they are happy about this. GPL allows
for the betrayal of charitable efforts.

These auctions are all for CDs that people have made. The first one in
particular includes compiled versions for all major platforms, and
portable versions that can be used on different computers.

The act of taking free software and burning it to a CD is what's called
creating value in economics.

Personally, as a free software developer, I would be flattered if people
thought highly enough of my software to sell it on Ebay. The people
buying it could also download it from my website (how do you think
they've found that auction if they don't know what GIMP is?), but if
they choose to pay someone to burn it on a CD and ship it to them,
they're free to do so.

This is not a betrayal of charitable efforts. This is the free
software culture working as intended.
--
Sent from Ubuntu

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 16:24 -0400, Patrick wrote:
 
 If I offer two streams what's to stop the business from using the 
 non-commercial version?
 
  Most businesses will not like the idea of selling or modifying gpl 
  software so they'll be open to paying for a different license to be 
  used and in that contract you can include the clause that credit to 
  you must be displayed in the user interface.
 
 
 I am not so special that they have to go to me.
 
 I do appreciate the feedback, sorry if this is too negative. This
 thread 
 is really a last ditch effort. I don't want to go closed source but
 FSF 
 licences don't work for me. I am hoping to find another source
 included 
 license that will work. 

You have said above that you're concerned about companies violating your
license. They can violate your license no matter what it is. A free
license can't prevent people from violating the license. A non-free
license can't prevent people from violating the license.

As such, no license will work for you, because you seem to have goals
that are not solvable by software licenses.

-- 
Sent from Ubuntu


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)


On 12-10-03 04:43 PM, Rudolf wrote:


It seems like you're complaining that you'll have to face competition. 
Yes it's hard to compete with larger companies but maybe you should 
cross that bridge when you come to it.


This is a hard problem that other projects face as you've pointed out. 
They simply issue warnings about downloading from scammers and that's 
the best you can do I think.


As i mentioned most companies will hesitate to sell or modify free 
software so you can negotiate a proprietary license agreement with 
them that's favorable to you (i.e. displaying credit to you )


If you feel the various open source and free software licenses out 
there aren't good enough for you then that's okay, pick or write up a 
license that's good for you.


Hopefully you choose a license that provides freedom to both 
developers and users despite potential competition from larger businesses.



Thanks again for spending time with on on this and your kind tone.

I have to figure out how to compete before i undertake a strong effort. 
It's a SWOT analysis. Strengths/Weakness/Opportunities/threats.


I am seriously considering hiring a lawyer to write a licence for me but 
the cost will hurt a lot.



As I was saying I am interesting in the Reciprocal Public License 1.0 
but under the urging of the FSF it had it's balls cut off in version 1.5 
and it now permits derivatives to be resold. I don't know if this 
licence is enforceable in court.


thanks again!

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 17:13 -0400, Patrick wrote:
This is not a betrayal of charitable efforts. This is the free
software culture working as intended.

ask the GIMP developers then:

IMPORTANT: GIMP AND OPENSOURCE SCAM ON *EBAY*!
http://gimp.1065349.n5.nabble.com/IMPORTANT-GIMP-AND-OPENSOURCE-SCAM-ON-EBAY-tp22744p22764.html

http://gimp.1065349.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=search_pagenode=2query=ebayi=12

Obviously many people feel betrayed.

Who in those threads are GIMP developers? There are as many people on
that list making the same points people on this list are making -- that
it is perfectly fine to sell free software.

This is an FSF mailing list. You will not find anyone to help you find
a non-free license to use.

This is the kind of mentality really infuriates me!

It's ironic that FSF has something in common with W George Bush and the
near-far right but it does.

W is a good speech reader, when he can remember the lines that were
written for him. On line that was distressing for many people including
me, was:

your either with us or your with the terrorists

Spoken shortly after 9/11

This is the kind of mentality I have encountered before with the FSF.
Live up to our 4 freedoms or your against us. Live up to our definition
of free or your with the mega-corps. I am sick of this and so are the
people being driven away from the FSF, read the many blogs.

Well, yes, if you are not in support of the FSF's position, you are in
some various state of disagreement with the FSF. Whether that means you
agree with the FSF's terminal goals is another issue, but in this case,
you and the FSF do disagree, and people on this mailing list are aligned
with the FSF. You won't find help here.

Also, have you checked the FSF's published list of corporate donors?
Google and other mega-corps are high on the list. There is nothing
anti-corporate about the FSF.

There are different kinds of oppression that the FSF does not address
and freedoms that it ignores.

Of course. The FSF is an organization with a specific mission. It's not
explicitly feminist, anti-racist, anti-fascist, or leftist, either, as I
personally would like it to be, but none of those causes are what the
FSF exists to uphold.

The FSF exists to promote free software, and you are asking people on an
FSF-sponsored list to help you pick a software license that is
explicitly non-free according to the definition published by the FSF.

Personally, I don't think you're doing anything horrifically wrong (the
consequences of your actions are likely to be small, so I don't
particularly care about your actions themselves), but you certainly
don't seem to be acting very strategically. If your goal is to find a
license that prohibits commercial use, this is the wrong forum to ask
that question in.

--
Sent from Ubuntu

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

2012-10-03 Thread Mark Holmquist


Exactly!!! I want to find another licence that provides all possible
freedoms for end users but does not open doors of oppression for crooks.


All possible freedoms, sadly, includes reselling copies. You're making 
totally incompatible demands here!


If you want to produce free software, use a copyleft license which *at 
least* preserves your users' freedoms regardless of the distributor. If 
you don't want to produce free software, you're asking in the wrong place.


--
Mark Holmquist
Software Engineer, Wikimedia Foundation
mtrac...@member.fsf.org
http://marktraceur.info

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)


Hi Mark, Hi Ted

Again this is your with us or against us. Regardless of the licence, if 
the code ships with source code am I not somewhere up the ladder from 
closed source, am I not?


Can you not come down from your Ivory tower and help me to find an 
alternative to closed source software(which is looking better then when 
I first posted)


I think it is better to give clean needles to drug addicts then to 
spread HIV.  Whether or not you agree with me should not be the issue, 
only finding as many alternatives to closed source as possible, even if 
that is a gradient.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

2012-10-03 Thread Michael Mehrazar

I believe the question can be boiled down to this: Is there a software
equivalent to Creative Commons Attribution + Noncommercial + ShareAlike
license?

I am not aware of any such license. However, I think that although such
a license would not be considered free under FSF's definition, I do
feel that it would be improper to call software released under such a
license proprietary or closed source. It's somewhat in between.

On 10/03/2012 05:24 PM, Ted Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 17:13 -0400, Patrick wrote:

This is not a betrayal of charitable efforts. This is the free
software culture working as intended.

ask the GIMP developers then:

IMPORTANT: GIMP AND OPENSOURCE SCAM ON *EBAY*!
http://gimp.1065349.n5.nabble.com/IMPORTANT-GIMP-AND-OPENSOURCE-SCAM-ON-EBAY-tp22744p22764.html

http://gimp.1065349.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=search_pagenode=2query=ebayi=12

Obviously many people feel betrayed.

Who in those threads are GIMP developers? There are as many people on
that list making the same points people on this list are making -- that
it is perfectly fine to sell free software.

This is an FSF mailing list. You will not find anyone to help you find
a non-free license to use.

This is the kind of mentality really infuriates me!

It's ironic that FSF has something in common with W George Bush and the
near-far right but it does.

W is a good speech reader, when he can remember the lines that were
written for him. On line that was distressing for many people including
me, was:

your either with us or your with the terrorists

Spoken shortly after 9/11

Also, have you checked the FSF's published list of corporate donors?
Google and other mega-corps are high on the list. There is nothing
anti-corporate about the FSF.

There are different kinds of oppression that the FSF does not address
and freedoms that it ignores.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 17:33 -0400, Patrick wrote:
 Hi Mark, Hi Ted
 
 Again this is your with us or against us. Regardless of the licence, if 
 the code ships with source code am I not somewhere up the ladder from 
 closed source, am I not?

No, you aren't. Free software is a term defined here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

It's a binary classification -- either you meet the four freedoms, or
you don't.

 Can you not come down from your Ivory tower and help me to find an 
 alternative to closed source software(which is looking better then when 
 I first posted)

This list is not the appropriate form to do that.

 I think it is better to give clean needles to drug addicts then to 
 spread HIV.  Whether or not you agree with me should not be the issue, 
 only finding as many alternatives to closed source as possible, even if 
 that is a gradient.

It's not so much about agreeing with you, it's about this list being an
FSF forum. This is not the place to ask for advice on making non-free
software licenses.

I don't believe the FSF recognizes any gradient of freedom -- just
licenses that meet their criteria for free software, and licenses that
don't.

-- 
Sent from Ubuntu


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)


And that's why the FSF is a sinking ship


http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-copyleft-use-declining-fast


On 12-10-03 05:37 PM, Ted Smith wrote:

On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 17:33 -0400, Patrick wrote:

Hi Mark, Hi Ted

Again this is your with us or against us. Regardless of the licence, if
the code ships with source code am I not somewhere up the ladder from
closed source, am I not?

No, you aren't. Free software is a term defined here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

It's a binary classification -- either you meet the four freedoms, or
you don't.


Can you not come down from your Ivory tower and help me to find an
alternative to closed source software(which is looking better then when
I first posted)

This list is not the appropriate form to do that.


I think it is better to give clean needles to drug addicts then to
spread HIV.  Whether or not you agree with me should not be the issue,
only finding as many alternatives to closed source as possible, even if
that is a gradient.

It's not so much about agreeing with you, it's about this list being an
FSF forum. This is not the place to ask for advice on making non-free
software licenses.

I don't believe the FSF recognizes any gradient of freedom -- just
licenses that meet their criteria for free software, and licenses that
don't.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

2012-10-03 Thread Patrick Anderson

Patrick patr...@spellingbeewinnars.org wrote:
 I want to find another licence that provides
 all possible freedoms for end users but does
 not open doors of oppression for crooks.

Are the distributors crooks only because they
are charging money for those copies?

What if they give your program away without
collecting money?

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

Thank you Michael

Yes, this is a correct assessment.

The problem is that the CC licences are not intended for use with
software. It sounds like they won't hold up in court.

On 12-10-03 05:36 PM, Michael Mehrazar wrote:

I believe the question can be boiled down to this: Is there a software
equivalent to Creative Commons Attribution + Noncommercial + ShareAlike
license?

I am not aware of any such license. However, I think that although such

a license would not be considered free under FSF's definition, I do
feel that it would be improper to call software released under such a
license proprietary or closed source. It's somewhat in between.

On 10/03/2012 05:24 PM, Ted Smith wrote:

On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 17:13 -0400, Patrick wrote:

This is not a betrayal of charitable efforts. This is the free
software culture working as intended.

ask the GIMP developers then:

IMPORTANT: GIMP AND OPENSOURCE SCAM ON *EBAY*!
http://gimp.1065349.n5.nabble.com/IMPORTANT-GIMP-AND-OPENSOURCE-SCAM-ON-EBAY-tp22744p22764.html

http://gimp.1065349.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=search_pagenode=2query=ebayi=12

Obviously many people feel betrayed.

Who in those threads are GIMP developers? There are as many people on
that list making the same points people on this list are making -- that
it is perfectly fine to sell free software.

This is an FSF mailing list. You will not find anyone to help you find
a non-free license to use.

This is the kind of mentality really infuriates me!

It's ironic that FSF has something in common with W George Bush and the
near-far right but it does.

W is a good speech reader, when he can remember the lines that were
written for him. On line that was distressing for many people including
me, was:

your either with us or your with the terrorists

Spoken shortly after 9/11

Also, have you checked the FSF's published list of corporate donors?
Google and other mega-corps are high on the list. There is nothing
anti-corporate about the FSF.

There are different kinds of oppression that the FSF does not address
and freedoms that it ignores.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

2012-10-03 Thread Patrick Anderson

Patrick wrote:
 I have thought about selling binaries and
 source without makefiles.

I'm confused why you want to distribute the
source at all...

If you don't want anyone to ever build the
project, then what good does the source
code do for those who receive it?

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

2012-10-03 Thread Patrick Anderson

Patrick wrote:
 I want the code to be used by end users
 in any way except to resell for a profit

What do you hope to solve by stopping the
resale of software for a profit?

How does selling Free Software hurt you
or anyone else?

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)


On 12-10-03 05:42 PM, Mark Holmquist wrote:

The problem is that the CC licences are not intended for use with
software. It sounds like they won't hold up in court.


Also, that CC-NC-* are also not free licenses, so we're back where we 
started, at an off-topic conversation! :)


and your back to throwing anyone who does not meet your exceptions into 
the street.


There have been a couple of helpful posts but this is basically a highly 
exclusive group of people bent on maintaining their dogma and the 
expense of the organization itself.


I thought the purpose of the list was to PROMOTE free software. All you 
are doing is looking down on people, it's useless

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

2012-10-03 Thread Mark Holmquist


Also, that CC-NC-* are also not free licenses, so we're back where we
started, at an off-topic conversation! :)


and your back to throwing anyone who does not meet your exceptions into
the street.


You're looking down on us a lot--all I'm saying is, we should stick to 
the topic of the list. This clearly falls outside of that.


You could always ask on the creative commons lists, they might be able 
to help and really don't care if something is free software or not. But 
you're not asking us about free software, so we can't really help you.


Dogma, by the way, has a negative connotation that I don't think applies 
here--we've all very carefully considered that free software is 
generally a good thing, and have chosen to be here to discuss free 
software. It's unfair to insult *us* simply for trying to suggest that 
you take an off-topic conversation to a different list.


--
Mark Holmquist
Software Engineer, Wikimedia Foundation
mtrac...@member.fsf.org
http://marktraceur.info

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)


On 12-10-03 05:59 PM, cryp...@nym.hush.com wrote:

I usually din't but I juste have to interact : in case A, do you realise that 
closing your software will also be a bad things for the parents and children 
you try to protect ?  they will not be allow / able to modify or adapt your 
soft to their needs if source are unavailable.

If anything happens to you or if they have special need nothing will allow them 
to use it the way they need.

Parents talk to each others, especially when you have special kids. When one 
find a way to get it free, it will be known...

Thanks. yes this is very true! I don't want to ship closed source, 
that's why i am begging for help! If there is source code it can grow 
without me, I just don't what parents getting scammed and all the FSF 
licences will allow this to happen.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)


On 12-10-03 06:00 PM, Mark Holmquist wrote:

Also, that CC-NC-* are also not free licenses, so we're back where we
started, at an off-topic conversation! :)


and your back to throwing anyone who does not meet your exceptions into
the street.


You're looking down on us a lot--all I'm saying is, we should stick to 
the topic of the list. This clearly falls outside of that.


You could always ask on the creative commons lists, they might be able 
to help and really don't care if something is free software or not. 
But you're not asking us about free software, so we can't really help 
you.


Dogma, by the way, has a negative connotation that I don't think 
applies here--we've all very carefully considered that free software 
is generally a good thing, and have chosen to be here to discuss free 
software. It's unfair to insult *us* simply for trying to suggest that 
you take an off-topic conversation to a different list.


Sorry for posting what was meant as a private message to the list. I 
honestly thought you forgot to CC the list

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)