[openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware
angelo.schneider at xcc.de
Sun Oct 17 22:24:31 UTC 1999
please RMS, if you quote me and you draw conclusions, please
quote everything, than its easyer to correlate what I said and ment
in relation what you quoted.
Propably, (you remember 'free' verus 'for free/free beer') you are
not aware that many people on that lists are not native english speakers
as e.g. I.
Ok pleaese see below.
Richard Stallman wrote:
> It forces you to release all your stuff which is in someway combined
> with the GNU stuff as GPL, too.
> Most people prefer 'free' software where the author states: "you can do
> ever you want provided you leave this notice intact".
> In fact I prefer a community source licence, which enforces everyone,
> who is earning money with my stuff, to fund me and allows every one, who
> simply want to use it for non commercial purpose, to use it 'for free'.
> Please tell me if I understand you properly. Here is what
> you seem to be saying.
Ok, to make it easy: no, you did not understand me properly.
> * You want to make your software non-free, with a license like Sun's
> non-free license. (That would mean we have to reject it.)
My softwae will be as free as yours but more free in one aspekt and less
in one other aspect:
a) you can get the source (thats what I consider free, the rest realy
does not interest me)
b) you can get it for free if you don't release your derived software
my work for money/if you are not payed for your software [less free]
c) you are not forced to make your derived work 'free' [more free]
> * You want US to release OUR software in a different way.
> You want us to use non-copyleft lax licenses
> which let you use our code in your non-free software.
Please see below: but yes I would like to use some stuff from your stuff
in a comemrcial 'product' payed per copy without to be forced to release
it imedialtly as open code and free code.
> * But you have no intention of letting us use your code
> in our free software packages.
Sorry, thats my point why I would like to be quoted in total.
>From where did you draw that conclusion?
You are a free human and everybody on this list is a free human(alien?)
so why should I want YOU (capitalising your US) to change anything?
Where did you get the point that I do not let you use my stuff?
I simply would sombody, who uses my stuff, let think about that:
do you save money/effort in using it? Do you earn money in using it?
If yes why don't you think that it is fair to chare one percent of it
> It seems you want a system where you impose restrictions on everyone
> else, for your profit, while the rest of us bend over backwards to
Very strange conclusion....
> cater to you. Surely you must be aware that that is quite
> I use the GPL to insist that we have a fair relationship, at least as
Thats what I wanted to point out: the GPL does not let me use the
under the conditions I like, and I think that are many people out there
with the same feeling. Thats all, and thats not an offence.
> regards use of my code. If you want to use my code, you have to let
> me use yours. Fair is fair.
That will I do ... But not under the GPL :-) If you want to use my code
you will have to accept my open source licence, as far as I know the GNU
project, this would ever be enough, but you seem very ideologic on that,
so I'm afraid you will never use code from me :-(
> I have not the finacial background to work years for free an than giving
> away my software for free.
> (Free software does not mean you have to "give it away for free".
> Free software is a matter of freedom, not price.)
I know that. But how can I apply the GPL to release my software to be
payed on an per copy base?
> You're saying you cannot write free software because you are not rich.
> When I started the GNU Project, I was not rich.
> Most people who work on free software are not rich.
> If you don't know this is possible, ask some people and find out.
Asking this does not help. You need a teacher and an advisor or a
> If you really wish to write free software, try to find a way,
I want to write open source software. I want everybody who has a
benefit in using my software to contribute (to my organisation).
It's just like using a road, sombody builds it, and everybody who uses
pays for it. Why not having the same in software?
I prefer to get simply rich :-) and spending my money in doing good
with that. But as I tried to express: the GPL forces me to forget the
"I write a tool and you as a smith use it and you pay back in some
respect what you save in using my tool" schema.
If I dont have to work for money at all, I will still have projects in
mind which are quite to huge to be done during my livetime.
I want to finance them, so I have to get rich first, quite easy.
> and maybe you will succeed. Even if you don't succeed completely,
> you may succeed partly. If you live cheaply, as I did and still do,
> you ought to be able to make a living by working half-time or less
As a Programmer not, as a Consultant yes.
> as a programmer. Even if that job involves making proprietary software,
> you could still write free software the other half of your time.
> Doing good for society with half of your work is better than doing
> no good at all.
You forgott one thing: some percentage of the guys on theese lists are
europeans: a great majority of us did their civilian service for 15/18
Paying/contributing to society is something everybody does in our world
Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Angelo.Schneider at xcc.de
Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
More information about the License-discuss