What license to pick...

[David Johnson]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, flash gordon wrote:

> 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're on the right track here, I think. But GPL software is still
truly free access and free use, even though it may be commercialized.
If I don't want to pay $80 for Redhat (and I don't) I can get it from
CheapBytes for the mere cost of the media, or grab it off of the ftp
server, or even go get all of the components and build it myself.

> When I give something to the public at large, I am sharing totally. 

Not if you put strings on it... And in a real way, you aren't giving it
to the public at all, you are giving individual copies of it to
individual people, and then telling them that they have full permission
to do the same.

But I need to ask, if you are truly sharing your software, why do you
reserve to yourself alone the right to earn any profit off of it?

> 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.

Having been in sales, I can say with utmost certainty that selling
involves a large amount of personal input, investment, time, and
analysis.

> 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?

Of course I would feel slighted. I would even be angry! But the purpose
of sharing is to share, not to protect one's own sensibilities. There
used to be a barely humorous saying that "if you love something, set it
free, and if it doesn't come back to you, hunt it down and kill it."
That is absolutely the wrong attitude.

> 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?

This is a totally different matter. When I give food and medicine to
the needy, I intend for it to go to the needy. I am not giving my food
and medicine freely to the public, but only a few select individuals.

But unlike food and medicine, software cannot be diverted. It can be
copied but not destroyed or hidden.

-- 
David Johnson
_______________________
http://www.usermode.org