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

Btw, it's actually surprising how many people don't actually know that
GPL software can be sold for money. To many people that info comes as a
surprise.

  I wouldn't be surprised if at least some people have published software
under the GPL without actually knowing (nor accepting) that someone could,
for example, make a compilation CD including their software and sell it
for good profit.

  Sure, they are fools for not actually reading what they publish their
software under. However, perhaps this part of the GPL license is not
advertised enough. Everyone only hears "your software will be free,
and anyone reusing it will be forced to also publish it for free".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp  wrote in message <487d2eed@news.povray.org>:
>   Btw, it's actually surprising how many people don't actually know that
> GPL software can be sold for money. To many people that info comes as a
> surprise.

That may be true, but the FSF has never made any mystery about it.

The point is that you can hardly just sell software that can be downloaded
gratis from the web.

If the people who insist on non-commercial redistributions are worried about
unscrupulous scoundrels re-selling their code in a box to uninformed
clients, a clause insisting that anyone distributing the software must
clearly state it can be also downloaded gratis on the official web site
would do the trick just as well. And such a clause would be perfectly
compatible with any definition of libre software.

The whole point to be able to sell libre software is to be able to sell it
as part of a service. That service can be as trivial as sending a CD-ROM to
a place where broadband Internet access is not available, and the fee will
be very small. Or that service can be a complete software solution for a big
society, with customization to particular needs and maintenance contracts.

But it is very important that it is possible to do business around libre
software.

This is the absolute prerequisite for big companies to invest money in libre
software, such as paying full-time developers or providing hardware to
projects.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> wrote:
> If the people who insist on non-commercial redistributions are worried about
> unscrupulous scoundrels re-selling their code in a box to uninformed
> clients, a clause insisting that anyone distributing the software must
> clearly state it can be also downloaded gratis on the official web site
> would do the trick just as well. And such a clause would be perfectly
> compatible with any definition of libre software.

  Actually I think the GPL doesn't demand that the source code must be
distributed publicly (eg. on the internet) nor separately from the
program itself. It just demands that the source code must be provided
if requested. In other words, the GPL doesn't require you to set up a
free service which provides the source code of the program (because such
a requirement would be questionable, as it might mean someone would have to
spend money on buying website space or such).

  The easiest way to comply with this is to put the source code in the
compilation CD along with the program. Basically this means that if you
want the source code, you'll have to pay for the CD. (Of course this
doesn't stop someone who has bought the CD from distributing the source
code in their website, but still...)

> The whole point to be able to sell libre software is to be able to sell it
> as part of a service. That service can be as trivial as sending a CD-ROM to
> a place where broadband Internet access is not available, and the fee will
> be very small. Or that service can be a complete software solution for a big
> society, with customization to particular needs and maintenance contracts.

  What I'm worried about is that some people have got the wrong idea about
GPL and do not realize that their software could actually be used by
someone to make big profit, which might not have been the intention of
the original author.
  (Sure, the nature of the GPL makes it pretty hard to make big profit
in the long run, but it's still theoretically possible.)

  I still have the opinion that even if you restrict your software
license so that it cannot be distributed for money, it can still be
called free.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:08:17 -0400, Nicolas George wrote:

> 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.

It's all a matter of perspective. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 16-Jul-08 0:36, Nicolas George wrote:
> 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:
which should have been: 'As far as I can read it did leave out the 
tricky part, yes:' ;)
> 
> "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.

I don't know about you but when I help my neighbor I don't usually ask 
money for it. Indeed this precisely the tricky bit you left out. You are 
not restricted in your freedom to redistribute copies, provided you are 
not charging for it. (yes I know we use a slightly different meaning of 
freedom here, but that may be cultural)

Post a reply to this message