D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] [Fwd: Re: [TLUG]: OT: non-commercial open source license?]

 

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