Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Alexandre Oliva 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?

Locking you in a padded room would do that. And remove a lot of your other choices, as does the GPL. It wouldn't be a good thing to do, though.

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?

It's not clear. Would that permit a piece of covered code to be included in a CDDL-covered work and vice versa? If so, it is less objectionable, but still harmful in the long run if if does not permit proprietary branches to come and go as they will. History shows that much software that is currently freely shared was once developed as proprietary versions and there is every reason to expect more to appear. Anything that discourages proprietary software development will thus almost certainly reduce the quantity and quality of what can be shared in the future.

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.

One person should not have to bear the development cost of something that could be widely used. But there is no fair mechanism to share it with GPL-covered code.

If anything, the payment for
my work should be divided by all users, so that each of them pays
less.

Suppose it is a work that requires 10 people to complete. Will you pay the other 9 up front first, knowing that any of them have the right to redistribute the code before you are paid?

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?

Why would your customer pay for that first copy, knowing no one else has to share the cost? And you can't charge less than the full amount yourself, knowing that your first customer can undercut your price for any other copies. How can there ever be a reasonably-shared price for a large set of users?

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.

Proprietary licenses let everyone make their own choices. Except perhaps when other restrictions have permitted a monopoly to develop.

The GPL does respect it, even though it sets forth conditions to stop
you from not respecting others' freedoms.

The GPL forces a choice between one kind of restriction or another.

--
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux