On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >> I suggest your participate more into these communities, learn about the GNU >> GPL (and not about some imaginary license you keep bringing about), and then >> advocate it to the people who don't know. > I can't advocate it because I believe its terms are immoral. What's immoral about stopping you from harming others? > Proprietary works are a side issue here as I am more concerned about > the restrictions against combinations with MPL, CDDL, orginal BSD Ok, good, let's move proprietary out of the picture and assume we have a license that goes: You may run, study, modify and distribute the program, with or without modifications, in source or object format, as long as (i) you don't get in the way of anyone's enjoyment of the rights granted herein as to the software or any derived work thereof, and, (ii) if you choose to distribute the program or derived versions thereof, in source or object code form, you (ii.a) accompany it with complete corresponding source code, (ii.b) apply terms and conditions that extend to all downstream recipients the rights granted herein as to the software an derived works, and (ii.c) you don't enable downstream recipients to get in the way of anyone's enjoyment of the rights granted herein as to the software or any derived work thereof. Let's call this SSCL, for Short Strong Copyleft Licenselet. (Don't assume, not even for a nanosecond, that this is something anyone should use to license software before talking to a lawyer :-) What are your objections to it, if any? > do you think it is reasonable to > require payment for your work in any field? Sure. What is not reasonable is to ask for more payment for my work just because more people are using it. If anything, the payment for my work should be divided by all users, so that each of them pays less. Of course this is easy to implement. I just compute how much my work was worth, and charge that amount from whoever hired me to do it. Then I let them distribute the work however they like, even charging for it so as to divide the amount they've already paid. I can also publish the work for anyone to use it, since I've already been paid for it. Right? >> How can something that isn't there be taken away? The GNU GPL adds to >> people's choices. The default is no choice at all. > The GPL is no different than a proprietary license in that respect. Actually, it is *very* different. Proprietary licenses most often don't let you copy or distribute the work at all, not under any other license, not under themselves. They don't respect your freedoms #2 and #3 no matter how you try to phrase it. The GPL does respect it, even though it sets forth conditions to stop you from not respecting others' freedoms. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
