Reinhard reinhard.mueller@bytewise.at wrote:
josX wrote:
Klaus Schilling wrote:
John Tapsell writes:
On Thu, 10 May 2001, you wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:56:24AM +0200, Stefan Meretz wrote:
Is there a copyleft license preventing from making money with free software?
No.
But you can always write one :)
No, you can't, because the software would not be free if its license prevented that.
Let's do it.
Draft:
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.
If gcc had this licence, could I ever take money for any program I write?
same
If people liked the program, how would I afford to burn as many cd's as people want?
Private money and give it away.
How would I afford to buy webspace to let others downloadthe program?
Private money and give it away.
Would I have to write proprietary closed-source software to earn the money I need for this "hobby"?
Yes, or you can do something else. 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. Lot's of people release their stuff and don't see money. /That/ is free(dom/beer) software. The GPL just doesn't fit it very well: it is much too money-oriented.
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.
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 ?
regards, Jos --
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 ?
Yes you are because all software is not for a wide audience. A lot of software is dedicated to a client or to a very small set of clients. I already have enough difficulties to convince my bosses that we should use free software and contribute when the contribution is not our "added value"; I may have a lot of difficulties to explain that, from now, we will decode frames from tibetan stations for our favorite client "for fun" and will sell hot dogs to make a living. :-)
A licence type such as you describe it would only convince people to use commercial software, therefore paying for things as common to everyone as an XML parser, or to develop proprietary system fitting their own narrow minded goals with limited testing. I definitely do not like this perspective.
Of course, what I wrote above lacks the IMHO in every sentence, please add it. :-)
Best regards,
Ludovic
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 downloadthe 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)
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.
Someone had to say this.
Greets,
WDS Hmm, where did I leave that pgp-sig
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 08:56:00PM +0200, WDS wrote:
[MS]'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
While I appreciate the (GPL) software written by people playing the open source game, they are not "allowed" to be called free software writers for one reason: the lack of community.
The basis of free software remains: community support. No matter how good relations you have with politicians and businesses, they matter nothing if you are one yourself. If you agree with all the money making with them, you won't object to "minor" changes to the laws themselves to smoothen the inconvenient facets of freedom.
GPL is a mere license, and (free) software is mere information. No magic there.
The only obstacle to that is and will be the grassroots. Politicians have power because people stay away from the barricades. More benevolent politicians is no answer, since the pendulum could and will swing backwards at any time. Reformists are a mere sedative.
Writing free software and trying to manage should really be seen as a viable alternative. At least you could then honestly be proud of what you do and are, instead of having another faceless wage slave position at another faceless corporation. I find it actually rather disturbing to hear independence being called idealistic (ie. unrealistic).
proprietary software). Surely they'd like to have us believe we can't influence politicians -- so they can do it more easily. And
The question really isn't "can we affect politicians?", but "should we?" The answer for first is "yes", but the outcome would be most uninspiring. I think the latter is a "no".
Let the reality gap between the grassroots and the nice tidy place where they live in grow. All that remains for us then is to defend from their inevitable but feeble (they are few, we are many) invasions and we would then live with only free software. (And more, but that's not a discussion for this list.)
Enough already... FSFE is better than no FSFE, but I'd like to see a more radical initiative.
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.
They don't care, they do it only for their paycheck.
Kari Pahula wrote:
proprietary software). Surely they'd like to have us believe we can't influence politicians -- so they can do it more easily. And
The question really isn't "can we affect politicians?", but "should we?" The answer for first is "yes", but the outcome would be most uninspiring. I think the latter is a "no".
Let the reality gap between the grassroots and the nice tidy place where they live in grow. All that remains for us then is to defend from their inevitable but feeble
Feeble? They make the laws, and they have the police to execute them. Remember the DeCSS boy? I wouldn't want to live a few years from now under laws where police could raid my home and confiscate my computer any time because I write or use free software (officially: because I violated some alleged trivial patents, or I don't have the correct stickers on my computer or, what comes next, perhaps because I don't want to give the SPA permanent access to my computer over the Internet so they can check that I'm not using "pirated software" -- the last one is fiction, but considering UCITA etc. perhaps not too far fetched).
(they are few, we are many) invasions
Yes, we are many, but there are much more people who don't care about the whole issue at all and are strongly influenced by the media. We know what happened to the word "hacker". If "they" start some serious press compaigns and we don't contradict, we can quickly have a strong public opinion and discrimination against us.
and we would then live with only free software.
Not necessarily. It's conceivable that in a few years from now, we will be able to do some things, e.g. buying certain things, doing your tax returns, participating in political elections, etc., only electronically and -- if we don't care -- only using proprietary software.
So, I think it's very important that "we" try to influence politicians and the press. Since I personally wouldn't like to do this, I'm thankful that others are taking this ungrateful job and have, in fact, had some success already (e.g. in the patent debate which is not over yet, but probably would be over, not to our favour, if there hadn't been some lobbying from some free software organizations and individuals, or in the UK crypto debate, or getting support for a free software project (GPG) from the German government).
Frank
Hey, could we cool down a little bit?!
And maybe could we come away from those black-white views?
Frank Heckenbach schrieb:
<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>
Turn it round: You want to encourage people to write free software for the money goal? Think of the roots of free software: Free software never had started if money were in the hackers eyes.
All money-game defenders sound like ESR, and I ask (me) why.
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).
This is an important point: "you must not restrict others freedom" - and therefore you have the most important restriction of GPL: you cannot change the license using or modifying the software. Jos' question is now - as I understand it - in the same spirit: Is becoming a business a danger for freedom of free software? Take this question seriously, please!
I see this danger. Some wrote: hacking free software for money is better than hacking prop software - want is wrong with that? I answer: the goal changes. I try to explain it.
Hacking free software always is a very personal thing, which has a lot to do with fun, have cool experiences, get acknowledgments, feel community, and stuff like that. It has to do with _me_. I am the ground for hacking and nothing else. This (and the community) is where the power comes from.
When money comes into this, grounds for hacking changes - maybe slowly. First I think: Oh what I cool idea, I combine a thing I like with the necessity of getting money from a job or a business. But then logics of business take place: What does the market says? How can I combine free software with a thing (a service or what else) to get money for it? Etc. These are _external_ demands. Primarily they have nothing to do with _me_, but I must follow them because I want to survive.
Greenpeace was brought up as an example. Yes, it is a good example how the money game works. Greenpeace is completely oriented in getting medial attention, because this directly corresponds to their income. They choose actions with this goal. They design their demands with this goal. Don't misunderstand me: They also want to change ugly things to the better, but this is not their primary task. First they have to provide their employees! The criterion of success is money and not reaching some demands. This is the kind of "success" I don't want to have with free software. You can study how far corruption can go if you look into german goverment. This is not a personal defect, it is how the money and market logics work. Market is a universal dictator - and this not a secret.
I conclude: market is not freedom (as some rumors tell) it is a danger for freedom.
However we have to handle with this danger. To me it is ok, to hack for money (free software or not), to have a business, or to work in hypermodern company with flat hierarchies (IBM here in Duesseldorf where I live is an example) or in a traditional one. Surprised? The main difference is that I don't glorify this bad necessity. Working for money always means working for external (market) demands, and this is bad, this is not what I want, this is not freedom. However, I have to do it, because I want to survive, and I be always aware, that not that work for external demands makes sense for but a lot of other stuff (including free software). So my measure for success is not market success or much money.
So my pleading is a kind of a way in the middle? It is simple: Don't talk about making money as a goal (neither in press releases nor on the web site), talk about freedom and how to expand it. And be realistic and do what you need to do to survive. And maybe in long terms think of a society where the freedom model of free software replaces money and market (this is very personal and not a topic of this list).
Bye, Stefan
Stefan Meretz wrote:
Hey, could we cool down a little bit?!
And maybe could we come away from those black-white views?
Frank Heckenbach schrieb:
<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>
Turn it round: You want to encourage people to write free software for the money goal?
That depends on where the emphasis is: Encourage people who would otherwise write free software without money to do it for money now? No. Encourage people who otherwise would write proprietary software or do something completely different for money, to write free software for the money instead if they can? Sure!
All money-game defenders sound like ESR, and I ask (me) why.
"All"? I thought you wanted to get away from those black-white views, didn't you? Remember, RMS in one of them (I and others have quoted various passages from him several times).
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).
This is an important point: "you must not restrict others freedom" - and therefore you have the most important restriction of GPL: you cannot change the license using or modifying the software. Jos' question is now - as I understand it - in the same spirit: Is becoming a business a danger for freedom of free software? Take this question seriously, please!
I see this danger. Some wrote: hacking free software for money is better than hacking prop software - want is wrong with that? I answer: the goal changes. I try to explain it.
Hacking free software always is a very personal thing, which has a lot to do with fun, have cool experiences, get acknowledgments, feel community, and stuff like that. It has to do with _me_. I am the ground for hacking and nothing else. This (and the community) is where the power comes from.
When money comes into this, grounds for hacking changes - maybe slowly. First I think: Oh what I cool idea, I combine a thing I like with the necessity of getting money from a job or a business. But then logics of business take place: What does the market says? How can I combine free software with a thing (a service or what else) to get money for it? Etc. These are _external_ demands. Primarily they have nothing to do with _me_, but I must follow them because I want to survive.
OK, I see your point -- though I'd like to add that external demands are not always evil: if you make, say, a Linux distribution or a (free) database and you get reactions from your customers (normal users or programmers using the db), they can force you to develop the program in a direction you didn't plan to, but it might actually turn out a good direction because it makes it more useful for different people's purposes (and that's also a criterion for good software, isn't it?). (Yes, I'm well aware that user feedback can also work well without money involved.)
My point is: If you have a non-free software related day job, you can hack your favourite projects at night. If you have a free software one, you still can do that. So the worst the market could do is to make the software written in the free software day job "useless" (if it develops in a direction no real hacker likes, and even no part of it is usable for a better free project), but it can't ruin your own projects. So in the end, it didn't do any good, but it didn't do any bad, either. (And that's the worst case.)
BTW, the higher in the (commercial) hierarchy you are (ideally, if you run your own free software company), the more influence you have on *how* to meet the external demands. E.g., if some customer wants some foobar program which does 3 particular tasks and has a nice GUI interface, you could do it the "Windoze" way, write a program to do exactly these 3 tasks in M$'s language of the day, deeply involved with its API, not usable for anything else and worthless in a few years when the OS and language have changed again. Or you do it in the free software spirit, implement some general functionality first (and chances are you will find some of it already from other free projects, so you don't have to start from scratch), and add a quick Tcl/Tk or whatever GUI that does what the customer wants.
When the next customer comes and wants something similar, the first programmer would try to mangle the new functionality in the program and soon have yet another unmaintainable bloatware, while the second one already has a rich functionality available (and if it's not enough, it's well structured and therefore cleanly extendible), so he just needs to write another Tcl/Tk GUI for the special wishes of the new customer.
That's only an example how the external demands can be directed (internally, without the customer noticing anything) to influence mostly the user interface (which hackers who want to use the project for themselves can just ignore if it's too ugly) while the real functionality can be kept in a nice form (so other hackers can enjoy it).
I conclude: market is not freedom (as some rumors tell) it is a danger for freedom.
I agree completely. I'm definitely not a capitalist (unlike ESR ;-). I'd never claim that the market supports free software per se, but since we have the GPL to protect us against *some* of the dangers, it is possible to get some useful free software "out of" the market -- not the same amount and the same kind than what would result if all programmers would only write free software according to their own ideas during their jobs, but that's not an option currently[1] -- the alternative (which was real until a few years ago) is that they don't write any at all.
[1] As I said in another mail, changing the society so this would be possible is a noble goal, but it's a different and a long-term goal and I don't see many concrete plans to reach it. So let's not mix this up with the concrete action we can (and should) take to support free software right now.
Frank
Hi Frank and all,
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
[1] As I said in another mail, changing the society so this would be possible is a noble goal, but it's a different and a long-term goal and I don't see many concrete plans to reach it. So let's not mix this up with the concrete action we can (and should) take to support free software right now.
Ok, you're right. I don't think, there is a contradiction. But for this list I propose to concentrate on free software support (with focus on freedom;-)). Those who want to go steps forward in expanding freedom have other possibilities. I want to point to "Oekonux" as an example - the most "concrete plan" I ever saw;-).
Oekonux (from german word combination of economy and GNU/Linux) is a fast growing grassroot project with a german and an english mailinglist. The topic is how to extend freedom as defined by FSF and GPL into other areas of society. A more radical approach. Two weeks ago a conference took place with 30 talks from different areas (from free software over free hardware to free culture and free science and free society as a whole) and about 180 participants (a lot of them traditional software engineers never had touch with free software). And it was discussed how to support FSFE, and if it could be a good idea to become an assosiated member of FSFE. Unfortunately the first FSFE press release was a slight damping (this is the background for my questions and critique).
Although Oekonux is not a "pure" free software group, but a broader group discussing these long-term goals mentioned above, I wish to have a good cooperation with FSFE. Therefore I want a strong FSFE. And Oekonux draws a lot of attention to free software from parts of society which have a completely different approach to this freedom topic (see articles in different newspapers and online journals). So my idea is a kind of "division of work".
That's for now. Here are links for those who are interested: Oekonux (german): http://www.oekonux.de Oekonux (english): http://www.oekonux.org Conference (german): http://www.oekonux-konferenz.de Interview with the Oekonux maintainer (english): http://www.nettime.org/nettime.w3archive/200104/msg00127.html
Ciao, Stefan
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:22:33PM +0200, Stefan Meretz wrote:
for this list I propose to concentrate on free software support (with focus on freedom;-)).
Excatly. Free software will be the focus of the FSFE.
Oekonux
The topic is how to extend freedom as defined by FSF and GPL into other areas of society. A more radical approach.
Let me add my personal opinion here: I am skeptical of the "Oekonux" approach because freedom in other areas as been discussed intensively for a long time. The "freedom for software" idea actually stems from the philisophy of freedom in other areas like science. Trying to revert the process to extend freedom from the GPL to others areas is not the best approach and ignoring a lot of good documented discussion of freedom in other areas.
Unfortunately the first FSFE press release was a slight damping (this is the background for my questions and critique).
The press release did focus on freedom.
Bernhard