On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 08:35:46PM +0200, service@metamodul.com wrote:
Hi folks, under http://www.metamodul.com/gpsa.html you will find a new business modell for the free software development. Sorry , but right now only in german.
Things todo:
- Translation into english and other languages.
- Create a workable contract text.
last but not least:
- Discussion about the GPSA - General Public Support Agreement
: ->Die GPSA Lizenz ist ähnlich der GPL, mit der Ausnahme, das Nutzer : von Programmen, welche unter der GPSA Lizenz steht, mindestens ein : GPSA Projekt unterstützen müssen. Somit hat man eine Art Viruseffekt : analog der GPL. SPONSOR
There doesn't seem to be a draft of this GPSA license. But let me point out that it _can not_ fulfill the description that is given for it on the web page.
Let me be more precise: The GPSA can not be like the GPL and make a requirement about when you are allowed to use the software. The GPL explicitely does not restrict using the program. Any license that makes restrictions about using the program is unlike the GPL.
More generally, there are several fundamental flaws with any requirement like the one you are describing. It is difficult to describe this by critizing the GPSA (because the GPSA is not written), but I can point out some important aspects of the GPL which are not "by accident", they are a desired and explicit feature of it. Disallowing any of these features makes a license non-free:
* The privacy of the user is respected. The licenser does not request disclosure of private modifications, usage, or whatever. The licenser does not require registration or notification by the users of the program.
* Copying and distributing the program is bound to certain conditions. If you read the conditions carefully, you will note that there is _no_ requirement at all to notify, register with, or otherwise contact the original licenser. The requirements on copying and distributing GPL'ed software can be fulfilled solely by one licensor (user) of the program who has a copy of the program and the other person who receives a copy of the program to become another licensor.
This feature is very, very important, because it sets the software free even beyond the time where the original licenser or author of the software is available. One reason Abandonware seeks for legitimization is that the software is not available legally when it is not sold anymore. This can also happen to software that aims to be free software but requires registration or notification to some third party (like another GPSA project) in some way. For example, if a license requires you to send email to the author, the requirement can not be fulfilled once the author is dead or off-the-net, or email is not an existing communication medium anymore. A software that requires a 5$ donation to the red cross would become unlicensable if the red cross would go away (unlikely, but you get the idea. It could also be renamed or merged with some other organization).
I am being so verbose because I want to point out how carefully the GPL is to not impose any restrictions that could lead to a situation where the software becomes unavailable. This ensures that free software stays free, for all eternity.
Thanks, Marcus