[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 04 January 2006 9:24 pm, Paul Sutton wrote: > I wonder if anyone can help out one of the toronto lug members with a > query on oss software, I have forwarded the original message, I know > there are a few members very clued up on this. The first problem is that he's talking about open source, not free software. "You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Open Source is becoming an almost meaningless term - even M$ is using it. Open can mean anything you like - from full freedom (in which case call it free software) to "you can read it but if you remember even one byte you'll be sued" - which is as much as calling it proprietary. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open So from here on, I use 'open source' as defined by the Open Source Definition, http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and free software as defined by the FSF. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html > > Most all of the "personal use" or "academic use" licenses really don't > > fall into "open source". That's about the summary. If open is to mean anything, it must mean open to anyone and everyone. A door that is only open to your friends but not your neighbour is not open. Any software using such restrictions has no place in the free software (or open source) world. Any licence that permits such restrictions is not open source: "1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php "Free Redistribution The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." http://www.uk.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines By specifying to whom a distributor may provide the software, or for what purposes that person may be provided with the software, free redistribution is made impossible. The original query was: > > > his > > > concern is that someone would post their own version and charge for > > > it. There's nothing wrong with that! "Posting their own version" includes packaging the unchanged software using Debian tools as a source and binary .deb package. The Debian Free Software Guidelines explicitly require that software in the main Debian archive is available for commercial distribution. Debian is commercial - so is Ubuntu. Debian sells CD's containing the GNU/Linux software for money. Debian makes an income and spends money on the materials as well - income and expense = profit, which in the understanding of most people qualifies as commercial. Debian has no power to restrict the sale of it's CD's to personal usage. Debian is not about to stop selling CD's in shrink-wrap, neither is it about to cut Xandros and other distributions out of the loop by trying to force them to provide their distributions for personal use only. This is from the OSD: "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Specifying that the software cannot be used in a commercial field of endeavour is the same manner of restriction and means that the licence is not compatible with the term 'open source', let alone free. Whether the intent is to prevent commercial redistribution or commercial usage, any licence that permits such limits is neither free nor open source. > > > So the question became: is there an open source licence that would > > > restrict use to personal only, and not commercial? It is impenetrable only because he's looking at open source, not free software. The GNU GPL is clear - the answer is NO. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic You cannot add any restrictions to the GPL and trying to restrict the use of the software is just such a restriction. Under the GNU GPL, anyone downloading the software - no matter how they may qualify originally - has the full and inviolate right to redistribute that software to whomsoever they please - including personal or commercial. You are not allowed to require that the person downloading even tells you what they intend to do with the software. The GNU GPL ensures that IF someone decides to package their own version and charge for it, two things happen: 1. The distributor is REQUIRED to release the full source code, including their modifications, under the GNU GPL. 2. Those modifications can be included in the original which is still available without charge. This has the effect that the original enquirer probably wants: That nobody can release an IMPROVED version that is only available for a fee. Once released under the GNU GPL, the software remains free forever. Anyone distributing it must make their modifications public which allows the original developer to include their modifications in the version that is available without charge. Free software and open source software MUST be allowed to be used and distributed commercially. To prevent such use is to make the software NON-FREE: i.e. proprietary. The original premise is an oxymoron. Non-commercial is not compatible with either open source or free software. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgppHt3f4esjd.pgp
Description: PGP signature