josX wrote:
This material is hereby released to the public. It is not allowed to be profitting from this material by selling it's use or the material
[...] If Apache had this licence, could I take money for website hosting?
Yes. You are not selling it directly, or selling it use.
Err, what is Apache's use? Serving http requests, I used to think. And what is the (main) service in website hosting? Serving http requests, I used to think. What did I miss?
How would I afford to buy webspace to let others download
the program?
Private money and give it away.
<cynical> Oh, great. Now we may not even take money for the good work we do if someone is willing to pay for it, we must also spend our own money in addition. This is really going to encourage people to write free software, isn't it? </cynical>
This is free software, and you guys who want te make a living from it ar ruining it, because it will end up being some bisnis model.
Void assertions. Can you give any example of a free software project ruined by becoming a "business model"?
OTOH, it's easy to find lots of projects which got abandoned long before v1.0 because the programmer had to spend his/her time on more mundane things like making money for a living.
About me agreeing with RMS: I agree with him when I read the discussions between ESR.... yes, I agree with RMS, and the difference between the /alledged/ position of Linus which is suposedly he doesn't care (don't want to put worth in his mouth here)... yes, then I would go with RMS. But (evidentally) I'm much more radical then RMS.
I don't actually think so, or you have a very odd definition of freedom. Take a look at your own draft: it contains a long paragraph full of "It is not allowed to ..." and "must not". To me, freedom reads like "you *are* allowed to ...". And also to RMS -- the main "must not" he uses is "you must not restrict others' freedom" (paraphrased).
So, sorry, but I think RMS is much more serious about freedom than you are.
But then again: am I really that radical when almost all software is given away for nothing, and almost all free-hackers do it for the fun of writing and the knowledge people can use it for free ?
Almost all? Did you check recently how many kernel, GCC, KDE, etc. developers are paid by Transmeta, VA Linux, Red Hat, SuSE, TrollTech, etc. *for* hacking?
What do you want, actually? -- Business exists. (If you want to change this, fine, start your revolution -- but this list is not the right place for it, and until you've succeeded, that's the reality.) So, if free software and business were really made incompatible, what would this mean: Would businesses dissolve so they could use free software? You must be joking. Or would it just force them to use proprietary software? Of course. -- And as a writer and user of free software, I want to promote the use and development of free software, not to restrict it.
According to your ideas, only the "die-hard" idealists would be allowed and willing to write and use free software. I might be one of them (though not in the amount I'm now because I'd have to get some other "day job"), but I prefer to be part of a larger movement than of a small, scattered group. Are you afraid of the loss of exclusivity?
Now, the following will probably generate some flames, but I'll write it, anyway:
In fact, your position fits quite well to that of M$. They would also like to see free software restricted to hobby projects and kept out of anything related to money -- then their dominance would not be threatened. And they'd surely like if only the very idealistic would be "allowed" to write free software -- then there would be much less free software for them to worry about. Of course, they also like to pay people not for writing free software (but proprietary software). Surely they'd like to have us believe we can't influence politicians -- so they can do it more easily. And they probably also like to see this "infighting" going on here. So I think you're making the M$ spies that certainly monitor this list very happy.
Note: I don't claim (or think) you are an M$ spy, I just couldn't but notice this coincidence ...
Frank
: For the GNU Project, the emphasis is in the other order: the : important thing is that GNU Ada is free software; whether it is : commercial does not directly matter. However, the additional : development of GNU Ada that results from this commerce is : definitely beneficial. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html)