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_page&node=2&query=ebay&i=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. > > >