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

andrel  wrote in message <487### [at] hotmailcom>:
>						  If more groups do it, it 
> doesn't make it less insane.

There is nothing insane about insisting on the economic part of freedom.

Post a reply to this message

On 15-Jul-08 23:51, Nicolas George wrote:
> Warp  wrote in message <487cfcb0@news.povray.org>:

> 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.

POV-Ray conforms to all these, *and* it does not cost money. You are 
leaving out the tricky parts. ;)

> 
> Maybe you could tell us what definition you would use?

Warp will probably also give an answer, but this is what I think:
Never, ever use an existing word in a new context without quotes, 
capitals or any other means to show you are redefining the meaning and 
always make sure that from context it can be deduced that this new 
definition is meant. So I am fine if you say that 'POV-Ray is not "Free 
Software" according to the definition given at ...'. Yet you can not 
abbreviate this to 'POV-Ray is not free' or even 'POV-Ray is not free 
software'. You can not make a folder in a general distribution named 
'free software' and claim that POV-Ray can not be there, because here 
the context is lost. And always remember that what makes sense in your 
country may not do so abroad.

Post a reply to this message

andrel  wrote in message <487### [at] hotmailcom>:
>> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
> POV-Ray conforms to all these, *and* it does not cost money. You are 
> leaving out the tricky parts. ;)

As far as I can read, no:

"Subject to the other terms of this license, the User is permitted to use
the Software in a profit-making enterprise, provided such profit arises
primarily from use of the Software and not from distribution of the Software
or a work including the Software in whole or part."

The freedoom to redistribute copies is encumbered of conditions.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> wrote:
> "Subject to the other terms of this license, the User is permitted to use
> the Software in a profit-making enterprise, provided such profit arises
> primarily from use of the Software and not from distribution of the Software
> or a work including the Software in whole or part."

> The freedoom to redistribute copies is encumbered of conditions.

  So, demanding that if you re-distribute the software you must do it
for free makes it a non-free software. Right.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp  wrote in message <487d2abf@news.povray.org>:
>   So, demanding that if you re-distribute the software you must do it
> for free makes it a non-free software. Right.

You are trying to use polysemy as an argument. That is not valid.

Post a reply to this message