------art_3520_29337172.1128294504192
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 10/2/05, Greg Brown <greg7224 / gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> > This is why I'm responding. It's the problem I have with the FSF and the
> > like. It's 100% _POSSIBLE_. It's easy to do. Dual licensing even fits in
> > the GPL. Whether that fits into the piles of ethics of above groups is
> the
> > only question, but there was never a problem with the possibility of
> doing
> > so. So it annoys me to no end when these groups refer to the possibility
> of
> > a concept when they really mean "should we say this an ok usage of free
> > software?" Which is ironic as it implies that _free_ software should
> have
> > controls to FORCE it to STAY FREE OR ELSE YOU EVIL CAPITALIST PIG, which
> is
> > in many ways as unfree as the very software I'm writing.
>
> Permitting software to be commercial is part of the definition of free
> software. Non-commercial licenses are NOT considered free software by
> the FSF. In fact, to be GPL compatible, a license must explicitly
> allow for commercial sale.
>
>
> > Once they've bought
> > my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their
> > heart's content. If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we
> > believe we deserve a cut.
>
> How far down the chain do you think this works? Do you think that an
> author should pay for every book written in word? The ethics of this
> boil down to software licensing, which by definition makes a piece of
> software non free.




Whether or not this is good economics I will not flame on about.
>
> As a side note, the idea behind commercial free software is that your
> money should come from a service you provide that requires your time or
> resources, such as improvements to code, convenient packaging,
> documentation, etc, and not to the imaginary costs of replication,
> which simply do not exist. Of course, you're free to charge whatever
> people are willing to pay for your software, but there is no reason
> that you should have a cut of their creations, whether or not they've
> been inspired by you, because it is there extra effort that yields the
> money.


It's the combination of the original work and modifications that make up the
total value proposition. A derivitive work may indeed add value, but part of
the overall value is in the original software.

>
>
> <insult>
>
> Then again, it seems like you're more interested in money than people
> anyway, in which case, perhaps you might charge every time someone
> types a keystroke into your program, considering that it IS interfacing
> with your program, after all.
>
> </insult>


That's not really fair. Even if you believe that software patents are bad
for people, as an intelligent person you have to realize that many do not
agree. Personally I think that the goals of the FSF if realized would harm a
lot more people then it would help, and I don't think you care less about
people because you see it differently. I might think you are wrong and
debate your logic and understanding of economics, but I wouldn't call you a
bad person just because you see it differently.

Chris

------art_3520_29337172.1128294504192--