Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Oh, I misunderstood - I thought *you* were saying that there was only one 
> definition for "free", not the FSF.  I don't disagree with your points 
> from that point of view, though I think the FSF's usage of "Free" is that 
> authors are "free" to not have their work incorporated into another 
> product that's closed source - ie, they're free to know where their code 
> is being used.  That is perhaps a bit more convoluted.

  That sound to me more like the code is protected by the license. Not
too much to do with freedom per se.

  Btw, no license throws away the original copyright, nor allows it to
me removed in derivative works. (Even if some license did that, it may
be legally questionable in many countries. Copyright is not something
you can get rid of easily.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:53:08 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Oh, I misunderstood - I thought *you* were saying that there was only
>> one definition for "free", not the FSF.  I don't disagree with your
>> points from that point of view, though I think the FSF's usage of
>> "Free" is that authors are "free" to not have their work incorporated
>> into another product that's closed source - ie, they're free to know
>> where their code is being used.  That is perhaps a bit more convoluted.
> 
>   That sound to me more like the code is protected by the license. Not
> too much to do with freedom per se.

It's about the author's freedom to know where their code is being used.  
Like I said, perhaps a bit convoluted in thinking, but it makes sense to 
me.

>   Btw, no license throws away the original copyright, nor allows it to
> me removed in derivative works. (Even if some license did that, it may
> be legally questionable in many countries. Copyright is not something
> you can get rid of easily.)

Sure, but it is more difficult to prove copyright infringement in 
situations where the code isn't open.

Not that it's impossible.  Just much more difficult.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson  wrote in message <487cf922$1@news.povray.org>:
> BTW, that's why *most* outside the FSF refer to the software these days 
> as "OSS" or "covered under an OSI-approved license"

"The OpenBSD project produces a FREE, multi-platform 4.4BSD-based UNIX-like
operating system."

<URL: http://www.openbsd.org/ > (emphasize not mine)

"NetBSD is a free, secure, and highly portable Unix-like Open Source
operating system available for many platforms"

<URL: http://www.netbsd.org/ >

I think they would not be very pleased to be forgotten.

Post a reply to this message

andrel  wrote in message <487### [at] hotmailcom>:
>	 FSF rules require that you have the freedom to sell software at a 
> price.

Please stop using the FSF as a scapegoat. All major Free Software actors
agree on that particular point.

Post a reply to this message

Warp  wrote in message <487cfcb0@news.povray.org>:
>    They want to completely own the word "free"

No, just the "free software" locution.

>		  The OSI has a much more liberal view on this than the FSF
>    but they still have a rather restrictive meaning.

The FSF definition and the OSI definition are very different on the
emphasis they put on various conditions, but technically, they are very very
similar. You need to search carefully in subtle licence clauses to find
licences that are OSI-approved but not FSF-approved.

>						       Especially the FSF
>    definition of "free" (regardless of which dictionary entry you want to
>    use) has little to do with freedom, as their GPL license is extremely
>    restrictive

Note that the GPL is _not_ the FSF definition of software freedom. The
Definition is:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the
  public, so that the whole community benefits.

Maybe you could tell us what definition you would use?

>    (for example you can't take a portion of a GPL software and use it in
>    another software which uses a different license, even if it's an
>    OSI-approved license).

By the way, do you think that this point is a precondition to call a
software free/libre?

Post a reply to this message

On 15-Jul-08 23:42, Nicolas George wrote:
> andrel  wrote in message <487### [at] hotmailcom>:
>> 	 FSF rules require that you have the freedom to sell software at a 
>> price.
> 
> Please stop using the FSF as a scapegoat. All major Free Software actors
> agree on that particular point.

It was the one mentioned and the one I checked. If more groups do it, it 
doesn't make it less insane. Unless of course the others do use the 
capitals like you suggest here.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson  wrote in message <487cff16@news.povray.org>:
>			   though I think the FSF's usage of "Free" is that 
> authors are "free" to not have their work incorporated into another 
> product that's closed source - ie, they're free to know where their code 
> is being used.  That is perhaps a bit more convoluted.

That would be very convoluted. Fortunately, that is not what the FSF calls
free: what you are describing is what they call "copyleft". Copyleft was
designed as a weapon to fight against proprietary software.

The only interaction between copyleft and free according to the FSF is that
FSF considers that software under copyleft is free enough to be called such.

That is not completely absurd. For example, a lot of countries put their
criminals in prison after a fair trial; these countries are still considered
as free countries.

>								  I would 
> be surprised if a court anywhere upheld that the author of a piece of 
> software released under the GPL couldn't dual-license it

There would be absolutely no base for that, fortunately.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:40:33 -0400, Nicolas George wrote:

> I think they would not be very pleased to be forgotten.

Not forgetting them, but do you really expect me to enumerate every piece 
of software released under some form of OSI-approved license? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> 	The issue here isn't what the *original* author can do. The problem
> arises when somebody wants to reuse parts of the original code. The
> sequence of events goes like this:
> ~ - You write some code and license it under the GPL;
> ~ - I take your code (or part of it), write some more code that
> interfaces with yours and want to distribute it. Then I can't choose
> the license under which I distribute *my* code.

(For the sake of argument, I take over the "you" character in your message.)

The whole point is that, if you took some of my code to do yours, then it is
not just _your_ code: it is _our_ code.

The FSF lawyers make a lot of noise and smoke, and pretend that the "viral"
effect of the GPL is wider that it actually is. If your code interfaces with
GPL code, but do not contain any GPL code itself, there is absolutely no
legal basis for your code to be under GPL. The resulting binary, on the
other hand, as a mix between GPL code and your code, could not be
re-distributed under a more restrictive license.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson  wrote in message <487d16f1@news.povray.org>:
> It's about the author's freedom to know where their code is being used.  

It is rather about the freedom for third parties to benefit from the
ameliorations to the code.

Post a reply to this message