What license to pick...

[flash gordon]

At 08:00 PM 9/29/00 -0700, David Johnson wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, flash gordon wrote:
>
> > GPL does not prohibit commercialization, it protects it.
> >
> > Personally I think that is a major flaw in the GNU/GPL concept of
> > 'freeware' - I think the term 'freeware' should be reserved for software
> > that is both free of restrictions on modifications and use AND free of
> > charge/cost [except for nominal media and copy costs].  GPL should better
> > be referred to as 'full use' software, in contrast to the typical
> > commercial 'limited fair use' copyright restrictions.
>
>Although all GPL software is indeed "freeware", it doesn't explicitely
>have that concept. In fact, GNU greatly prefers that people don't refer
>to their products as freeware, partially because of the potential
>commercializatin, and partly to disassociate itself with proprietary
>freeware (internet explorer, etc).

 From what I read on their website, GNU seems determined to keep the term 
'free' associated with their GPL concept, which I think perpetuates confusion.

I would suggest standard admittedly simplistic definitions:

1] 'Full Use Lifetime License' = [FULL] 'unfettered use' [i.e. GPL]
2] 'Limited Use Software Enjoyment Rights License' = [LUSER License :)] 
typical restricted commercial type copyright
3] 'No Cost License' = No cost, limited use
4] 'Freeware' = Both full use and free of cost - truly free access and use.

>*** You are not sharing if you deny people the
>ability to profit off of what you have given them. If I give someone a
>sandwich, I certainly expect them to profit nutritionally. If the user
>does not profit is some way from my software, than I can only consider
>my software a failure.

When I give something to the public at large, I am sharing totally.  My 
gift is free and full use for everyone.  Anyone who tries to capitalize on 
my gift, in essense converting it to their private property and demanding a 
fee for it is little more than a thief and a fraud.  They are charging for 
something they do not have any property rights, something they only possess 
but do not own, like the air.


>To take a concrete example, if I share a financial planning software
>package, and the user proceeds to make $100,000 through its use, why
>should I quibble over the fact that he sold a copy for $50?

If they make a $100,000, it is primarily because of their personal input, 
their investment, their time collecting and analyzing data etc.  It is from 
their efforts.  Reselling the product of your efforts, is different.  Much 
different if they resell 2000 copies and make $100,000.



>One of the reasons I hear against commercialization of free software is
>exploitation: the user has profited without giving anything back to the
>author. But what about the case where I give a case of fine wine to a
>friend, and he proceeds to through a wonderful and joyous party, to
>which I was not invited? Have I been exploited because he did not offer
>to me a part of the enjoyment (profit) he received from my wine?

You benefit from freely sharing with your friend and he likewise benefits 
from freely sharing with his guests.  He received freely and he gave 
freely.  However, had you given it as a personal gift and he instead took 
that case of wine to his store and sold it, would you not feel slighted?

I see this as being a total perversion of the concept of truly free 
software access.  When someone donates food and medicine for those in need, 
is it acceptable for it to be intercepted by some middlemen [i.e. 
governmental bureaucrats or military personel] who then divert it to their 
own uses or demand payment or extort some service for it?

As it is said, the power to tax is the power to destroy.  The license to 
charge for code is in itself a limit on access.



>I can certainly understand you not wanting others to profit off of your
>work. GNU has other concerns which is why they use the GPL to restrict
>how people may redistribute their software. I am concerned neither way
>and impose minimal restrictions on my software. Neither of these
>viewpoints are correct for everyone.

For those that want to sell software, let them write it.

Open source software with full use license, allows maximum opportunity for 
talented coders to practice their craft, offering their services to any and 
all in need.

Those who want to merchandise a program should author that program.  Their 
compensation is earned by their own creative efforts, not the mere 
merchandising of the works of others.

Software and the internet allow an excellant opportunity to change dynamics 
of exchange of services, to eliminate middlemen who usually profit from the 
sweat of others, not their own creativity or effort.  Talented consultants 
and coders now have the ability to perform a service direct to the user 
nearly anywhere in the world, with only delivery by internet or snail mail 
in between.  That is another freedom, the freedom from corporate servitude, 
of being a wage slave.