Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)

[Patrick]

Hi Michal
> 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 don't really want to do this but I have thought about selling binaries 
and source without makefiles. The code base will include Ada and I think 
a lot of people will have trouble compiling it without a makefile(or GPR 
file)

This seems sneaky and underhanded but might be a setup from shipping 
fully closed source.
> > 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.

China and India are my biggest fears. Thousands upon thousands of 
laboratory jobs have been sent to these places. Here in Ontario, Canada 
the biosciences sector is all but destroyed. It won't help to sell 
closed source software to these markets but it could make sense to give 
closed source and charge for support. This really seems like the only 
viable option but I really want to find something that will make sense 
and be source included though...

> [0] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#require

I am not going to be able to live up to the 4 freedoms of software but I 
hope I can live up to 3 !