"Can you give me an example of software that is freely redistributable that is profitable solely by sales of licences?"
If you restrict your thinking this much, you will not give yourself all the chances you might have. I am conducting my own experiments in related areas.
"My objection was to Stallman claiming that no-one should have the right to ask people to accept a EULA that restricts redistribution:"
I have never seen this claim made by him. That it is unethical (or something similar) for someone to do this, perhaps, but not that you should not have the legal right to do this unethical thing.
"What I'm looking for is a licence that allows all freedoms except 2 (the freedom to redistribute)."
Why would anyone in the marketplace with this valuable knowledge give you this knowledge for no cost? Why would anyone make such a license available to the public at no cost?
"That's because freedom 2 is utterly incompatible with the production of commercial software, except where that software is consultingware, or tied to expensive hardware in some way."
Well, I guess we disagree on this point.
"As an aside: in his article Why Software Should Not Have Owners, Stallman completely misunderstands the point of the voluntary interaction between individuals that underpins a free society:"
When copyrights as we have them now enter the picture, we are not talking a Free Market of a free society any longer. Government monopoly grants are now in the picture. In the absence of copyright law, you could develop your program and enter into license agreements with each customer to restrict them by contract as you wish and they could enter into such agreements or not as they wish. That would be a free market in action, with the government granted monopoly in the mix, the free market is out the window.
"Everyone should have the power to set the terms of an agreement - and the power to accept or decline that agreement."
You have been able to buy dBASE based accounting software that comes with source code for years. Some even allowed you to sell modules you developed based on this source - I don't know the details of that... perhaps you paid more for the license which allowed the selling of said modules, perhaps you paid per copy sold. I imagine a little research would turn up the info.
You can probably easily do what you wish, but you are not likely to (let's say you will not) find a Free license as Free licenses are defined by the Free Software Foundation which will let you do what you want.
Nothing makes you give copies away gratis, but the libre side prevents you from placing such restrictions on people who get code from you. If they want to make copies of Free code away gratis, the libre part will let them do so. If it didn't, it would not be libre.
"They want your money, and the money of everyone you know."
Which is one reason why they want my attention. So I will tell those I know about the cool new work of their I encountered and tell them that they need to experience it too.
"You might not like that but if there is competition in the market one can presume an efficient market can deliver each at a lower cost as a result of the extra profit to be made."
You are not likely to get an efficient market as there are government granted monopolies involved.
"But until people invented text -to voice converters you never missed this did you? it's only when this became possible that you noticed that they did not want you to do it. so it's not a traditional right."
Until someone invented recording, authors were not able to sell audio reproductions of their works either, why would they miss it?
My attention and what is in my head and what I talk of with others is valuable. If they don't want their work to be a part of a Free culture, fine, I want to give my attention to others who do want their works to be a part of a Free culture.
Make no mistake, they want your attention, they just want it on their own crazy terms. Refuse them your attention. Give it instead to others who want it but on sane terms.
"To hell with all of them. I'll read quietly, or out loud when ever I please. And just for being assholes, I'm going to pirate the next book published by a guild author. And I'm going to listen to Microsoft Sam read it to me. And I'm going to pretend to like it."
It might hit them harder if you gave your attention instead to people who respected you more.
The topic is about trying to deter copyright violations with criminal laws and harsh penalties and the comment is that if they do manage to deter copying by these means they may not like the results as it may make works that compete with theirs but offer the legal ability to copy more attractive in comparison.
I may be being a bit dense, but where is the offtopic here?
That may be so, but some people were already "old" and their buying spiked when the original napster was in play and then fell off again when it got shut down.
Ask around among some "old heads" and see what you can find.
"Your friend needs to learn to actually read the EULA and to not agree if she is unwilling to meet the terms of the agreement."
Normally I would agree with something like this, but these days, I think that no one should be held to any "non-standard" click to agree legal document. Especially for long documents for items costing less than say ten thousand dollars. (get the picture?)
I have what I think are good reasons for ending up in the place where I am on this now.
"What you should be doing is sending them a message that also tells them how you want it to look. Show them demand, but on your terms."
So, pay attention to and support music that is under a Free license, cc BY-SA or BY, the Free Art License, etc.
Check out kompoz.com. ccmixter.org, jamendo.com, etc. If you try this though, avoid the non-Free stuff as that will lead you right back to where you start.
Well, add in all ISPs, record companies, and radio and TV stations. That should be a good start. Are you sure companies don't have some appeal process under this law though?
"if they accepted other contributors' code under the GPL, they would then have to accept the code to be GPL forever, for all versions), so they won't/can't integrate other contributors' code into the main distribution (unless they can work out some seperate licensing agreement with the third-party developer)."
You know, I think a big player might get away with something like this:
Outside developers send in code under the gpl plus with a license that allows locked up non-gpl licensing so long as the company or related entities only ever have one code base that is under the gpl and locked up. (This may be unclear... what I am getting at is it is not cool for the gpl code to be "lesser" or "different" to the other code. It is the same code available under two different licenses.)
So, if a big player would commit to that, I think they may see a willingness for outside developers to give them contributions. Possibly even better if they could set aside some portion of the profits to send back to their outside contributors somehow.
As a little guy, I want the big guys to make it. At the same time, I want assurances of some kind that I will always get the code in a Free form.
Slashdot Mirror
"Can you give me an example of software that is freely redistributable that is profitable solely by sales of licences?"
If you restrict your thinking this much, you will not give yourself all the chances you might have. I am conducting my own experiments in related areas.
"My objection was to Stallman claiming that no-one should have the right to ask people to accept a EULA that restricts redistribution:"
I have never seen this claim made by him. That it is unethical (or something similar) for someone to do this, perhaps, but not that you should not have the legal right to do this unethical thing.
all the best,
drew
Duncan,
"What I'm looking for is a licence that allows all freedoms except 2 (the freedom to redistribute)."
Why would anyone in the marketplace with this valuable knowledge give you this knowledge for no cost? Why would anyone make such a license available to the public at no cost?
"That's because freedom 2 is utterly incompatible with the production of commercial software, except where that software is consultingware, or tied to expensive hardware in some way."
Well, I guess we disagree on this point.
"As an aside: in his article Why Software Should Not Have Owners, Stallman completely misunderstands the point of the voluntary interaction between individuals that underpins a free society:"
When copyrights as we have them now enter the picture, we are not talking a Free Market of a free society any longer. Government monopoly grants are now in the picture. In the absence of copyright law, you could develop your program and enter into license agreements with each customer to restrict them by contract as you wish and they could enter into such agreements or not as they wish. That would be a free market in action, with the government granted monopoly in the mix, the free market is out the window.
"Everyone should have the power to set the terms of an agreement - and the power to accept or decline that agreement."
And the GPL goes against this how exactly?
all the best,
drew
You have been able to buy dBASE based accounting software that comes with source code for years. Some even allowed you to sell modules you developed based on this source - I don't know the details of that... perhaps you paid more for the license which allowed the selling of said modules, perhaps you paid per copy sold. I imagine a little research would turn up the info.
You can probably easily do what you wish, but you are not likely to (let's say you will not) find a Free license as Free licenses are defined by the Free Software Foundation which will let you do what you want.
Nothing makes you give copies away gratis, but the libre side prevents you from placing such restrictions on people who get code from you. If they want to make copies of Free code away gratis, the libre part will let them do so. If it didn't, it would not be libre.
all the best,
drew
"They want your money, and the money of everyone you know."
Which is one reason why they want my attention. So I will tell those I know about the cool new work of their I encountered and tell them that they need to experience it too.
all the best,
drew
"You might not like that but if there is competition in the market one can presume an efficient market can deliver each at a lower cost as a result of the extra profit to be made."
You are not likely to get an efficient market as there are government granted monopolies involved.
"But until people invented text -to voice converters you never missed this did you? it's only when this became possible that you noticed that they did not want you to do it. so it's not a traditional right."
Until someone invented recording, authors were not able to sell audio reproductions of their works either, why would they miss it?
drew
Why would I want to do that and reward them with my attention? Why do you want to reward them with your attention?
Unless you suggest just getting their stuff in way that make them mad but then never reading them... Is that the game you see?
drew
I think not.
My attention and what is in my head and what I talk of with others is valuable. If they don't want their work to be a part of a Free culture, fine, I want to give my attention to others who do want their works to be a part of a Free culture.
Make no mistake, they want your attention, they just want it on their own crazy terms. Refuse them your attention. Give it instead to others who want it but on sane terms.
all the best,
drew
"To hell with all of them. I'll read quietly, or out loud when ever I please. And just for being assholes, I'm going to pirate the next book published by a guild author. And I'm going to listen to Microsoft Sam read it to me. And I'm going to pretend to like it."
It might hit them harder if you gave your attention instead to people who respected you more.
drew
--
http://zotz.kompoz.com/
I won't try to make sense of it, but I will ask questions when I can get around to it...
drew
Offtopic?
Surely you jest!
The topic is about trying to deter copyright violations with criminal laws and harsh penalties and the comment is that if they do manage to deter copying by these means they may not like the results as it may make works that compete with theirs but offer the legal ability to copy more attractive in comparison.
I may be being a bit dense, but where is the offtopic here?
drew
They may not like the result...
The stuff carrying the Free Licenses would get an extra edge...
Some thoughts on a "Copyright Offensive" - http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
drew
Better hope no one in the room comes down with malaria anytime soon...
drew
What happens if you mention Godwin and not Hitler?
drew
Are you talking bad lyrics? I am talking bad songs more than just bad lyrics.
drew
What is needed is to do some of the worst songs ever like those were done and see if improves the worst ones.
drew
That may be so, but some people were already "old" and their buying spiked when the original napster was in play and then fell off again when it got shut down.
Ask around among some "old heads" and see what you can find.
drew
"Your friend needs to learn to actually read the EULA and to not agree if she is unwilling to meet the terms of the agreement."
Normally I would agree with something like this, but these days, I think that no one should be held to any "non-standard" click to agree legal document. Especially for long documents for items costing less than say ten thousand dollars. (get the picture?)
I have what I think are good reasons for ending up in the place where I am on this now.
drew
There ya go.
Fun can('t) done as we say around here.
drew
"What you should be doing is sending them a message that also tells them how you want it to look. Show them demand, but on your terms."
So, pay attention to and support music that is under a Free license, cc BY-SA or BY, the Free Art License, etc.
Check out kompoz.com. ccmixter.org, jamendo.com, etc. If you try this though, avoid the non-Free stuff as that will lead you right back to where you start.
Thoughts?
all the best,
drew
"The music industry is beat.. but they have a war chest and they intend to spend every dime before they give up and go home."
Wonder if they would get better returns investing the war chest with Madoff instead?
But seriously, they can adjust, the question is, will they do so in time?
all the best,
drew
Well, add in all ISPs, record companies, and radio and TV stations. That should be a good start. Are you sure companies don't have some appeal process under this law though?
all the best,
drew
"if they accepted other contributors' code under the GPL, they would then have to accept the code to be GPL forever, for all versions), so they won't/can't integrate other contributors' code into the main distribution (unless they can work out some seperate licensing agreement with the third-party developer)."
You know, I think a big player might get away with something like this:
Outside developers send in code under the gpl plus with a license that allows locked up non-gpl licensing so long as the company or related entities only ever have one code base that is under the gpl and locked up. (This may be unclear... what I am getting at is it is not cool for the gpl code to be "lesser" or "different" to the other code. It is the same code available under two different licenses.)
So, if a big player would commit to that, I think they may see a willingness for outside developers to give them contributions. Possibly even better if they could set aside some portion of the profits to send back to their outside contributors somehow.
As a little guy, I want the big guys to make it. At the same time, I want assurances of some kind that I will always get the code in a Free form.
all the best,
drew
"And SUN can always roll the communities code into its version. Without cost I might add. So what's the beef?"
Didn't they have some dual license play at some point that would have prevented this?
all the best,
drew
Gee.
1000000/30000 = 33.34 rounded
So, that's under thirty four dollars per child.
Now how much do all these jokers want to get when a child violates the "privacy rights" of a song?
Not that anyone actually did anything wrong in this case mind you. No.
all the best,
drew
"Can't we just find an old subthread on the subject and link to that instead? :)"
Hmmm. Perhaps we should write up an official RFC for it and refer to it by number henceforth...
It would have to contain a good bit of wit and humour to be worth it though. And no references to Hitler...
all the best,
drew