This Bret, the author of USBDOS (and a few other programs also. I've added a
few comments below to Jim's comments, but basically Jim is right on target.
People have made comments about how this is a non-standard license and would
like to see me incorporate a widely-published one (and there are a lot of
them). Of the ones I've seen, the one that comes closest to my perspective is
the Reciprocal Public License (RPL), even though it's not considered valid by
the Free Software Foundation (FSF). In future releases of programs I may use
RPL instead of my "custom" license, but I haven't decided for sure yet.
Let me summarize why I disagree with the FSF with a relatively pithy statement.
"Freedom" to the FSF means you can do pretty much anything you want with
someone else's stuff that they gave you for free, including the freedom to make
money from it. My definition of freedom is that you can do pretty much
anything you want with the stuff you got for free EXCEPT make money -- free
means perpetually and totally free in every sense. You can leverage the free
stuff to make money ("You can use the programs without restriction"), but you
can't make money from the programs.
Bret
> Someone else asked me about the USBDOS license. This person
> highlighted a note in the USBDOS license that suggested "if your
> website collects money, then you can't distribute USBDOS" - and the
> person asked about the Patreon link on the www.freedos.org website.
>
> So I thought I'd share my reply here, and see if anyone else had
> thoughts on this. Overall: I don't think the Patreon link is an issue
> for the USBDOS license. Let me know if you disagree.
>
> I don't know if Bret still subscribes to the freedos-devel list, but
> maybe he is and can answer more definitely. :-)
>
>
> I downloaded a copy of the USBDOS files from https://bretjohnson.us/
> and evaluated that. In USBINTRO.DOC, I found the "COPYRIGHTED
> FREEWARE" section which said this: (entire copy)
>
>> The accompanying programs are authored by Bret Johnson with suggestions,
>> programming, documentation, and testing help from Richard Bonner
>> (http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak621).
>>
>> This section contains the license for all of the enclosed programs. I'm
>> not going to inject a bunch of legal language in here that a smart
>> lawyer can find a loophole in. I'm writing down the intent of how I
>> want the programs to be distributed and used in my own words, and hope
>> that the intent is clear, no matter how the literal words can be twisted
>> to mean different things (remember when President Bill Clinton, a
>> lawyer, claimed he didn't understand the meaning of "is" during the
>> Lewinsky hearings?).
>>
>> All of these programs, as well as their documentation and source code,
>> are freely available to anyone who wants them. You can use the programs
>> without restriction, but you cannot directly or indirectly use the
>> executable programs, documentation, or source code to create or
>> distribute new programs that are not also freely available. You also
>> cannot distribute the programs, documentation, or source code and charge
>> (even indirectly) for their distribution. You can charge someone enough
>> to cover your actual, direct costs for distribution (disks, shipping
>> materials, postage, etc.), but cannot charge for "handling". This also
>> means that you cannot distribute the programs, documentation, or source
>> code directly from a web site that charges a "registration fee" in an
>> attempt to make a profit or to recover direct or indirect costs for
>> maintaining the web site.
>>
>> If you distribute related or derivative programs, you must use
>> essentially the same license. You must provide and distribute the
>> programs and documentation for free, and you must include the
>> documentation with the program. You must give credit where it is due,
>> and must make the source code freely available to anyone who wants it.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps a good test of whether your program is adhering to the license
>> or not would be if you are willing to let me post the program,
>> documentation, and source code on my web site, to be downloaded by
>> anyone who wants it. In fact, if you create any new related or
>> ancillary DOS USB programs, I would like the opportunity to distribute
>> them from my web site. I won't guarantee that I will necessarily do it,
>> but would like the opportunity. Distribution from my web site
>> (http://bretjohnson.us) is not required by the license.
>
> I see several terms in this license: (some of these are reworded,
> numbers added by me for reference)
>
> (1) All of these programs, as well as their documentation
> and source code, are freely available to anyone who
> wants them.
>
> (2) You can use the programs without restriction, with
> this exception: you cannot directly or indirectly use
> the executable programs, documentation, or source code
> to create or distribute new programs that are not also
> freely available.
>
> (3) You cannot charge (even indirectly) to distribute the
> programs, documentation, or source code
>
> (4) You can charge someone enough to cover your actual,
> direct costs for distribution but cannot charge for
> "handling".
>
> (5) You cannot distribute the programs, documentation,
> or source code directly from a web site that charges a
> "registration fee" in an attempt to (5a) make a profit or
> (5b) to recover direct or indirect costs for maintaining
> the web site.
>
> (6) If you distribute related or derivative programs,
> you must use essentially the same license.
>
> (7) You must provide and distribute the programs
> and documentation for free, and you must include the
> documentation with the program.
>
> (8) You must give credit where it is due, and must make
> the source code freely available to anyone who wants it.
>
> I don't see an issue with what I've numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, or 8.
>
> I see the point with item 5. However, the mention of a "..directly
> from a web site that charges a 'registration fee'.." seems (to me) to
> be specific to sites that charge a mandatory fee to access files.
That is correct. Voluntary donations to a website owner are fine, as long as
they really are voluntary. E.g., a site that gives special privileges to
Patreon donors would be a violation, even if the USBDOS files were not "behind"
the Patreon firewall since that would be an indirect charge for maintaining the
website.
> And yes, I have a Patreon on the www.freedos.org website, but
> supporting me (or any FreeDOS developer) on Patreon is entirely
> optional.
> While neither the www.freedos.org/patreon page or
> https://www.patreon.com/freedos/about page mention anything about
> using Patreon support to pay for the website (both pages talk about
> giving me extra freedom to make videos or write programs) I think it's
> fair to assume that part of the Patreon support also goes to pay for
> the website. (The www.freedos.org/patreon page says "I earn a tiny
> monthly amount from ads on YouTube, which isn't quite enough to cover
> hosting costs for the FreeDOS website, but it's close enough.")
>
>
> *Aside: I make only a tiny amount from YouTube, and I never intended
> to become a professional YouTuber anyway. Basically, YouTube pays just
> barely enough to cover web hosting costs. My Patreon pays me (not
> quite) enough to justify taking time out of my consulting practice to
> record the YouTube videos. In the end, it's basically net-zero for me.
> :-)
>
>
> But I think it's important to note that the FreeDOS Files Archive is
> directly hosted at Ibiblio, which does not require any kind of
> registration fee, and does not have any other mechanism to ask for
> funding from folks. Same for GitLab.
>
> So, looking closely at item "5" in the license, I think it's okay to
> keep hosting this on the FreeDOS Files Archive at Ibiblio, and keep a
> copy on GitLab.
That's fine.
> *Also, note the last paragraph in that USBINTRO.DOC file:
>
>> Perhaps a good test of whether your program is adhering to the license
>> or not would be if you are willing to let me post the program,
>> documentation, and source code on my web site, to be downloaded by
>> anyone who wants it. In fact, if you create any new related or
>> ancillary DOS USB programs, I would like the opportunity to distribute
>> them from my web site. I won't guarantee that I will necessarily do it,
>> but would like the opportunity. Distribution from my web site
>> (http://bretjohnson.us) is not required by the license.
>
> This is an interesting test. And if you look at any part of FreeDOS,
> all of our programs can be reshared by anyone, on any kind of website.
> So this passes the "test" mentioned here that we would be "willing to
> let [him] post the program, documentation, and source code on [his]
> website, to be downloaded by anyone who wants it." That's fine. Anyone
> can do that with FreeDOS, and many folks have.
>
> Bottom line: I think this is okay.
It is.
> Thoughts?
>
> Jim
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
