RFC: New business modell for free software development
Marcus Brinkmann
Marcus.Brinkmann at ruhr-uni-bochum.de
Fri Sep 13 00:49:26 UTC 2002
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 08:35:46PM +0200, service at 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
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus at gnu.org
Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
Marcus.Brinkmann at ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/
More information about the Discussion
mailing list