> Hi Bret,
>
> > [..]
>>> 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.
>
>> [..]
>>> 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.
>
> Ok, now I'm confused.
So am I. There is a lot of gray in this discussion and very little black and
white. There is a HUGE discussion we can have about Software Copyrights and
what's right and wrong with them from a philosophical or moral or historical
perspective. That's why I framed my Copyright in a discussion about intent
instead of "letter of the law". See below to see why it's not as clear-cut as
it should be, and somebody could convince me to change my mind about something.
> You say that keeping a copy on ibiblio and GitLab is fine. That is great. :-)
>
> But earlier in your reply You mention that if a site provides some features
> only to paying members, that site cannot provide USBDOS. Even when that site
> provides USBDOS to non-paying members and not even membership is required to
> download USBDOS.
>
> I fail to see how GitLab can qualify to provide a copy for download. GitLab
> has
> many features that are only available to paying members.
>
> Please explain how this is okay, but a feature provided to a Patreon donator
> is
> not. To me, it seems to be a contradiction.
I think we can divide software into three different aspects: writing/compiling
the program, publishing/distributing the program, and using the program. Only
the last one, actually using the program, is the one I think should be done
without restriction. E.g., if you use the USBDOS keyboard driver to type into
the computer, whatever you use what you typed for is irrelevant (whether it's
another useful program, a book that you intend to sell, a book you intend to
give away for free, or an Internet virus intended to destroy the world).
What GitLab is intended to be used for is collaborative software development,
not distribution of final software (although you can use it for that). When
you pay for things on GitLab, you are paying for extra space on their servers
to help you collaborate on bigger projects, not necessarily for other programs.
As another level of confusion, if you use the FreeDOS web site to download a
program, and lot of them are simply links to ibiblio. I don't use either
GitLab or ibiblio, but I don't see a "pay side" of ibiblio (maybe there is one,
but it's not obvious -- certainly not as obvious as GitLab). But, for the sake
of argument, let's assume there was a "pay-side" to ibiblio and the FreeDOS
files were stored there. FreeDOS is paying for the GitLab service, but from my
perspective I'm getting them for free (at least if I go through the FreeDOS
website). In my mind, this would be somewhat similar to the Patreon analogy --
FreeDOS is voluntarily paying for the GitLab service but is not asking me to
contribute anything if I don't want. This would be similar to what I do for my
website (bretjohnson.us), where I pay voluntarily for a provider to host the
web site but don't require payment from the users/visitors. They can
voluntarily contribute if they want, but nothing is required.
> Thanks
>
> :-)
>
> Jerome
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
