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

[cryptie]

I usually din't but I juste have to interact : in case A, do you realise that 
closing your software will also be a bad things for the parents and children 
you try to protect ?  they will not be allow / able to modify or adapt your 
soft to their needs if source are unavailable.

If anything happens to you or if they have special need nothing will allow them 
to use it the way they need.

Parents talk to each others, especially when you have special kids. When one 
find a way to get it free, it will be known...

Sent with cyanogenmod
, Oct 03 at 09:51 PM (UTC), "Ramana Kumar" <ramana@member.fsf.org> wrote:

> Another attempt at a summary, and a plea for focussed
> clarification.
> 
> Patrick has written/will write two pieces of software, A and B.
> Patrick's wishes:
> 
>    1. Users of A do not pay for using it.
>    2. Users of B know that Patrick wrote B.
> 
> Patrick's assumptions:
> 
>    1. His wishes are best realised by his choice of software
> licenses.
>    2. People need significant help finding gratis copies,
> especially when
>    non-gratis copies exist.
>    3. People need significant help finding the original author
> of the
>    software they are using.
> 
> Much of the rest of this thread is trolling. Please don't
> continue it.
> 
> Patrick, do you have any other relevant wishes or assumptions,
> or is this
> an accurate summary?
> 
> Everyone else, write specific ways to realise his wishes and/or
> specific
> inaccuracies in his assumptions or faults of reasoning
> therefrom.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Patrick
> <patrick@spellingbeewinnars.org>wrote:
> 
> >  Hi Ramana
> >
> > I am not good at writing in as few words as possible...
> >
> >
> > "You want people to use your software (and
> derivatives?) without paying
> > for it."
> > Yes, without having to pay for it.
> >
> > With both projects, If the software was to be free as in
> beer forever, it
> > would solve problems. Parents wouldn't get screwed over in
> the first and I
> > could make money selling support as long as I could also
> insure that
> > everyone who used the software knew that I wrote it in the
> second.
> >
> > If I offered them both as closed source but free of charge
> then I "code
> > in" messages to the end users. If someone sold them
> the software and then
> > once they started to use, it, it said it was to remain free
> (as in cost)
> > forever that would cut into their revenue model :) I could
> also sue the
> > people who sold it
> >
> > I've seen GIMP posted on Ebay for sale. I don't want this
> sort of thing to
> > be done. I want to grant people the right to use it for
> free and to enforce
> > that in court.
> >
> >
> > I have to take my kids out to the mall but I will respond
> to emails again
> > soon, thanks for the feedback... BIAB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it okay if I post my last response to you to the list?
> >
> > On 12-10-03 12:58 PM, Patrick wrote:
> >
> >
> > For the second project I think GPL is the right license: by
> law anyone
> > using its code or part of the code must show the
> "based upon $project
> > created by $you" line, also you can get revenue by
> both selling binaries
> > (with the source attached) and providing support.
> >
> > For the first one GPL is also good as no one can legally
> "close" the code.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Marco
> >
> > Here is the thing though.... Most parents don't know what
> close or open
> > sourced even is. If I distribute it as a close source
> application and have
> > a notice pops up that states this software is only to be
> distributed free
> > of charge, if you paid for it contact so-and-so so that we
> can defend your
> > rights. That ought to be a deterrent.
> >
> >
> > Also keep in mind that FSF approved licenses are about
> freedom not about
> > money ("free as in free speech" not "free as
> in free beer").
> >
> >  I do know about this but I don't think that FSF licences
> protect
> > communities only end users.
> >
> > It's not okay to say that anyone in Indonesia can use this
> software for
> > whatever use they desire and never have to give back
> anything but but it is
> > okay to say that Walmart can do this, if they only use it
> internally. Yet
> > Walmart is economically larger then this country of 237M
> people:
> >
> > http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0718-worlds_largest.html
> >
> > GPL is very wrong for me, I hope to find other licences
> that will protect
> > the charitable nature of the first project and protects my
> right to be
> > acknowledged in the second project. The GPL will do this to
> some degree in
> > the licence but how many end users read the licence, I want
> something that
> > will have to be displayed to them
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12-10-03 01:32 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand how making your software non-free is
> solving your
> > problems.
> >
> > These are the problems you said you have:
> >
> >    1. You want people to use your software (and
> derivatives?) without
> >    paying for it.
> >    2. You want credit for your software, in particular,
> that any people
> >    using it can easily find out that you wrote it.
> >
> > (If I have got them wrong, or missed anything, please
> correct.)
> >
> > Please explain how you can solve these two problems by
> making your
> > software non-free (in as few words as you can).
> >
> > Please also restate briefly why you cannot solve these two
> problems while
> > also making your software free.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Patrick
> <patrick@spellingbeewinnars.org>wrote:
> >
> >> 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 !
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >