On 12-10-04 12:14 PM, Felipe T. R. Tovar wrote:
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
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
[copy to poster]
Le 03/10/2012 23:54, Patrick a écrit :
My posts are confusing because I have two projects. Let me just stick
to the charity one for now.
I don't want parents of autistic children to have to pay for the
software I am going to write to try to help them. Right now the only
way
Ok, I try a (long) short on the thread responses:
0) whatever closed/sewing on infringement/fs license solution, there
could be unlikely some robberies, also ideas themselves cannot be
copyrighted and you will experience clones if there is a market.
1) As I said, VIM /is a charity-ware/
Le 04/10/2012 19:33, Patrick a écrit :
Thanks so much for taking the time to put together this detailed
email. This will take some time to analyze. I really appreciate your
time-Patrick
You're welcome.
I forgotten:
my opinion on (any, but especially that) kind of project is that
On 10/05/2012 05:51 AM, Patrick wrote:
I'd better not answer this. I should wind things down now. The FSF
foundation and it's members care about free software but the scope of
concerns stops there. FSF compatible licences do not protect charitable
software from becoming for-profit, period.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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*!
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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?
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?
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
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.
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
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,
Patrick said:
And that's why the FSF is a sinking ship
You may find this interesting then:
http://faif.us/cast/2012/feb/28/0x23/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 10/04/2012 10:52 AM, Patrick wrote:
All you are doing is looking down on people, it's useless
I would be interested to know how it is that FSF is preventing you from
writing a license that serves your absurd desires? Refusing to do your
work for you is not the same as locking you down.
It
35 matches
Mail list logo
