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
With kind regards Hajo Ehlers
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.
: ->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
Problem: Other free software developers then couldn't use the program unless they also pay some project.
Frank
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
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 02:49:26AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 08:35:46PM +0200, service@metamodul.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Hello World !
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.
Freedom 0 : use of the piece of Software... Do you all know the 4 freedoms of Free Software ? See http://france.fsfeurope.org/libre.en.html
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.
About this subject, read �Why Software Should Be Free�, by RMS : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html and especially the chapter �The Harm Done by Obstructing Software�
As I don't read German anymore (sorry), I only have read Marcus's (and others') answer(s)...
Raph
Raph raph@r4f.org writes:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 02:49:26AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
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.
Freedom 0 : use of the piece of Software... Do you all know the 4 freedoms of Free Software ? See http://france.fsfeurope.org/libre.en.html
Interesting, do _you_ know what freedom 0 is? Last time I check what the freedom 0 was it went something like this: the freedom to run the software, for /any/ purpose.
Which would clearly make this GPSA license non-free if it has an clause when you are allowed to "use" the software. Of course this is only my understanding of the issue, and I haven't really bothered reading any previous posts on the topic so shoot me. :)
Cheers,
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 07:57:03PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Raph raph@r4f.org writes:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 02:49:26AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
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.
Freedom 0 : use of the piece of Software... Do you all know the 4 freedoms of Free Software ? See http://france.fsfeurope.org/libre.en.html
Interesting, do _you_ know what freedom 0 is? Last time I check what the freedom 0 was it went something like this: the freedom to run the software, for /any/ purpose.
It is intended to avoid clauses like �you can use this piece of software for non-profit usage only�.
Which would clearly make this GPSA license non-free if it has an clause when you are allowed to "use" the software.
You've got the point : the least restriction of the use of a piece of software makes it clearly non-free.
Companies unable to make a living of Free Software are: - companies using Free Software, - and the ones who didn't realize that selling software is different from selling potatoes.
Software isn't a good: it's knowledge. So sharing software is like sharing knowledge, it shouldn't be restricted.
What you have to pay for isn't this type of general-purpose knowledge (software available on the Internet), but specific one: - support - consulting - specific developments - training
It isn't the first time that I hear about making yet another license for Free Software, which would allow companies to make a living of Free Software; each time, I've been upset by the lack of imagination of my interlocutor: they all want to take some freedom away !
As is, Free Software allows to make a living of it, but software editor is definetly not the way.
Raph
Its looks like that i was not precise enough.. The GPSA - General Public Support Agreement - is a business contract and not a license. I have thoughts about a GPSA License but these thought are at a pretty early state.
The reason for the GPSA is that the GPL gives a kind of freedom for the software community but the GPL is not able to feed a software developer. For me its something like the situation for the slaves in america after the american civilian war. They were free - they had the american constitution - but they had nothing to live for so they went back to be a "free slave" ( worker ).
My intention is to let worker ( software developer, musician ... ) have a live where they can stay free as it/they can be. So it would be nice if you could review the text in that context.
With kind regards Hajo Ehlers
P.S Please excuse if i should offend anybody. English is not my mother tongue.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 08:55:18PM +0200, service@metamodul.com wrote:
Its looks like that i was not precise enough.. The GPSA - General Public Support Agreement - is a business contract and not a license. I have thoughts about a GPSA License but these thought are at a pretty early state.
Well, my comment was about the GPSA License which was explicitely mentioned as one option, as an alternative to the GPL.
The description of the GPSA (I understand it is not available yet) indicates that it would not be a free software license. I think that it is quite strange that a web site describing a business contract and business model for free software companies describes a non-free software license as an alternative to the GPL.
I can not say if the business model you describe is feasible or not -- I don't know enough about economics to comment on it. But I can tell you that the description of the GPSA license (not the business model) is in violation of the fundamental freedoms that the GPL aims to protect.
You might want to study http://www.gnu.org/philosophy and make sure that your ideas and business models are compatible with the word and the spirit of free software. And you might want to remove the description and the references to the GPSA on the web site to prevent any potential misunderstanding. This would then make it clear that your concern is about a free software business model (with the focus on free).
Thanks, Marcus