[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community orien

From: Michał Masłowski
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:50:26 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux)

> It's still in the planning stage but once complete, I do not want it
> to be sold but to be free as in beer forever. If I understand things
> correctly to be a FSF approved licence, the licence must allow for
> resale, I won't allow this. Parents of autistic kids are already under
> enormous stress and most won't end up knowing there was a free as in
> beer alternative. parisites will swoop in an screw over the parents by
> sellign them the software.

I think no legal solution will solve this problem completely (e.g. you
can buy illegally copied discs with proprietary software).  A license
that allows selling and requires including appropriate attribution
notices could solve that misinformation problem in some cases.  You want
parents to know about your software, in the past discs sold with
collections of software could be useful for this, while a no-selling
license would disallow making it known this way.

> I am not blaming him but I think if he chose a different licence for
> his work, things might have been different. What Torvalds did to him
> was specifically allowed by the GPL his desire to have people refer to
> the OS as GNU/Linus is based on honour and not law.

Would a legal solution be as effective as requiring making the source
code available?  It clearly doesn't work for Chinese tablets with Linux.

> I want permanent credit for my work with the scientific instrument
> control project. If someone else uses the code i want them to have to
> display to the user that I was the one who started the project at a
> specific font and for a specific time period. This way if other
> companies want to offer paid support, the end users will still know
> that I was the one that wrote it and i can provide better support for
> it. If RMS did something like this I think he would be much better off
> now.

GPL3 allows something similar in 5d and 7b.

GNU/Linux is a different issue: it's a collection of separate works (the
FSF also considers it "improper" to have made such a naming
restriction [0]).


Attachment: pgpORutCxalfE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]