RFC: New business modell for free software development

Raph raph at r4f.org
Fri Sep 13 08:08:04 UTC 2002

On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 02:49:26AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 08:35:46PM +0200, service at 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 :
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)...

Raphaël Rousseau
Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus.

More information about the Discussion mailing list