baud@eedsp.eedsp.gatech.edu (Kurt Baudendistel) (12/22/89)
Having read some misinformation on this topic recently in this group, I have to set the record straight:-) The ``free'' in Free Software Foundation does NOT mean ``free of charge.'' The copyleft does NOT require you to give away software to all comers for no charge. The copyleft does require you to give all rights to any software that you sell to your customer. This includes the right to the source code (you must supply it to your customer) as well as the right to sell the source (the customer can resell the product or give it away as he likes). This means that copylefted software is ``free'' of encumberences, except for the ``encumberence'' that the software, or any derivatives of it, must remain ``free'' of encumberences. As a matter of practicality, once you ``sell'' some copylefted software, your customer can ``sell'' it as well and is instantly your competitor (for selling that software, that is). In fact, your customer can give it away if s/he likes. So as a pratical matter, you can only (really) sell support services for copylefted material, unless your customers are nice to you and don't ``take advantage of you,'' whatever that means. How do I know all of this? If you read the GPL carefully (and get some straight answers from appropriate sources about what it really says), you too will come to the realizations outlined above. Maybe FSF should change its name to the Unencumbered Software Foundation (coined by manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis)) so that there is no more confusion on this topic? kurt -- Kurt Baudendistel --- GRA Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering, Atlanta, GA 30332 internet: baud@eedsp.gatech.edu uucp: gatech!gt-eedsp!baud
manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) (12/22/89)
In article <696@eedsp.eedsp.gatech.edu> baud@eedsp.eedsp.gatech.edu (Kurt Baudendistel) writes: >Maybe FSF should change its name to the Unencumbered Software Foundation >(coined by manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis)) so that there is no more >confusion on this topic? I must respectfully decline the honour. I didn't coin this phrase (though I like it a lot: it reminds me that, according to Jonathan Swift, the Laputans were engaged in a product to extract light from cucumbers. Next to that, the zaniest software licence is common sense). However, there are two views of unencumbrance [sic]: either you can do with the code what you want, or you cannot prevent a customer from doing with the code what s/he wants. Those who decry the GPL subscribe to the first view, while FSF argues for the second. There have certainly been times when I refused to use an FSF product for something because of the licence agreement, but there have been many more times when I have used their products in the way that the GPL specifies. Does being able to see both sides of the issue make me a wimp? -- \ Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca> "There is no law that vulgarity and \ Department of Computer Science literary excellence cannot coexist." /\ University of British Columbia -- A. Trevor Hodge / \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394
scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) (12/22/89)
manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes: >In article <696@eedsp.eedsp.gatech.edu> baud@eedsp.eedsp.gatech.edu >(Kurt Baudendistel) writes: >>Maybe FSF should change its name to the Unencumbered Software Foundation >>(coined by manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis)) so that there is no more >>confusion on this topic? >I must respectfully decline the honour. I didn't coin this phrase >(though I like it a lot: it reminds me that, according to Jonathan >Swift, the Laputans were engaged in a product to extract light from >cucumbers. Next to that, the zaniest software licence is common sense). Gee thanks! I think *I* coined it, in a followup to Vincent Manis' posting in this thread. First time I've ever been compared to Swift. >However, there are two views of unencumbrance [sic]: either you can do >with the code what you want, or you cannot prevent a customer from doing >with the code what s/he wants. I disagree with the latter simple meaning of the word 'encumberance' -- the FSF is placing restrictions on the software so that I cannot do "what I want" with it. As such, it is encumbered. One may argue endlessly (particularly in this group :-) as to the rightness or wrongness of the encumberance, but it remains an encumberance. >Does being able to see both sides of the issue make me a wimp? "Human, all too human." Robert Heinlein.