but prohibits them from creating derivative works, or redistributing it in any fashion?"
I meant to imply the redistribution of derivative works there.
Obviously, modifying the software in-house counts as a derivative work, and I'm okay with that - just not with the idea that customers would then onsell or give away the modified product to other potential customers.
Last I checked, the FSF didn't actually define the word libre, although they did nicely market it to mean exactly what they want it to mean:-)
To clarify though: when I spoke of creating derivative works, I meant 'creating derivative works and distributing them...'. Imagine taking My Product X, modifying it slightly, then onselling it in modified form. That's what I don't want.
I'm not even sure that distributing modifications would be verboten... of course, I can see how that could be gamed, simply by distributing a very large patch:-)
Re. the consulting... the idea is to rely on licence sales, rather than consulting. Think shrinkwrapped software; if people want to make money by customising my product, I'm okay with that (at least I think I am; I honestly haven't given it much thought).
If I wanted to focus on consulting I'd just release it under the LGPL. The thing is, consulting doesn't scale very well. The most money you can make consulting is rate x # of consultants - whereas the shrinkwrapped software model scales very well indeed.
Definitely - I don't think there's anyone around who'd argue that Ask Slashdot is equivalent to quality legal advice:-)
At the same time though I'm very happy to discuss the issue with people who are interested in it, and perhaps get some tips from people who've BTDT. Hence I posted it to Slashdot anyway...
I've been assuming that the FSF wouldn't support a licence that didn't allow redistribution. The Free Software Definition specifies the following freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
What I'm looking for is a licence that allows all freedoms except 2 (the freedom to redistribute). 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.
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:
Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.
In fact, if you want to use software, then the owner of the software may nominate the terms under which you use it. Obviously you are free to accept or decline, but once you've accepted, you must abide by the terms of the agreement.
Everyone should have the power to set the terms of an agreement - and the power to accept or decline that agreement.
You'd be right, if they were hiring us to write software for them.
In this case though it's shrinkwrap software that's licensed not purchased. I want to offer the product with full source, and allow the customers to modify it however they want (although, obviously, free support for modified products will be limited).
Essentially the only thing I want to stop them doing is distributing it. Imagine a normal EULA, but instead of the typical prohibitions on reverse engineering and modification, the only significant restriction is on redistribution of the software.
Apple is now deleting posts relating to jailbreaking from their discussion forum. My post didn't contain instructions or links to jailbreaking tools - I merely spelled out the advantages of jailbreaking, and criticised Apple for abandoning the hacker culture that brought them success in their early years.
There is no scientific consensus on AGW - over 31,000 American scientists (including more than 9,000 PhDs) have signed this petition arguing that there is no convincing evidence supporting AGW theory.
Network externalities are a perfectly normal and good consequence of having a large user base. You wouldn't be bitching about network externalities if there was a sufficiently large Linux user base to make desktop Linux viable, now would you?
As to your other point, software patents and process patents are examples of the State being used to support monopolies, and are as you claim very harmful.
Don't you see that the solution here is less State involvement in the market, not more?
The only true monopoly is one enforced by the State. If a 'monopoly' in a free market is sufficiently onerous, that fact in itself will be incentive for the creation of a competitor.
Why the hell has the Government got to anything do with this? If eBay customers don't want to use eBay because they're mandating PayPal, they have the right to go elsewhere.
It's a sad day for liberty when the customers of a company get to use force to determine the policies of that company.
Ultimately, open source software is mutually incompatible with digital rights management. Imagine you had a system built from the ground up on open source software; everything from the BIOS to the document viewing software was open source and thus open to end-user modification. With such a system, there is simply no way to restrict users from viewing content, short of encrypting that content and providing the key only to trusted users.
To take a simple example: imagine you have a PDF that has the 'printable' flag set to false, and you want to print a page from it. Just get the source code to your favourite open source PDF viewer, modify it to ignore said flag, recompile, and print to your heart's content.
I have also confirmed that BigPond used to offer an anti-virus category on their unmetered download page, but that they recently removed it. When I asked why, the CSR with whom I was dealing flat-out lied and claimed they never had such a category. Details on my blog.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's not about helping, it's about feeling better about himself by proving his intellectual superiority in a public forum.
Just like I did right there ;-)
When I wrote:
I meant to imply the redistribution of derivative works there.
Obviously, modifying the software in-house counts as a derivative work, and I'm okay with that - just not with the idea that customers would then onsell or give away the modified product to other potential customers.
Last I checked, the FSF didn't actually define the word libre, although they did nicely market it to mean exactly what they want it to mean :-)
To clarify though: when I spoke of creating derivative works, I meant 'creating derivative works and distributing them ...'. Imagine taking My Product X, modifying it slightly, then onselling it in modified form. That's what I don't want.
I'm not even sure that distributing modifications would be verboten ... of course, I can see how that could be gamed, simply by distributing a very large patch :-)
Re. the consulting ... the idea is to rely on licence sales, rather than consulting. Think shrinkwrapped software; if people want to make money by customising my product, I'm okay with that (at least I think I am; I honestly haven't given it much thought).
If I wanted to focus on consulting I'd just release it under the LGPL. The thing is, consulting doesn't scale very well. The most money you can make consulting is rate x # of consultants - whereas the shrinkwrapped software model scales very well indeed.
Definitely - I don't think there's anyone around who'd argue that Ask Slashdot is equivalent to quality legal advice :-)
At the same time though I'm very happy to discuss the issue with people who are interested in it, and perhaps get some tips from people who've BTDT. Hence I posted it to Slashdot anyway ...
drew,
I've been assuming that the FSF wouldn't support a licence that didn't allow redistribution. The Free Software Definition specifies the following freedoms:
What I'm looking for is a licence that allows all freedoms except 2 (the freedom to redistribute). 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.
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:
In fact, if you want to use software, then the owner of the software may nominate the terms under which you use it. Obviously you are free to accept or decline, but once you've accepted, you must abide by the terms of the agreement.
Everyone should have the power to set the terms of an agreement - and the power to accept or decline that agreement.
You'd be right, if they were hiring us to write software for them.
In this case though it's shrinkwrap software that's licensed not purchased. I want to offer the product with full source, and allow the customers to modify it however they want (although, obviously, free support for modified products will be limited).
Essentially the only thing I want to stop them doing is distributing it. Imagine a normal EULA, but instead of the typical prohibitions on reverse engineering and modification, the only significant restriction is on redistribution of the software.
Apple is now deleting posts relating to jailbreaking from their discussion forum. My post didn't contain instructions or links to jailbreaking tools - I merely spelled out the advantages of jailbreaking, and criticised Apple for abandoning the hacker culture that brought them success in their early years.
> Although scientists are agreed ...
That's a lie.
There is no scientific consensus on AGW - over 31,000 American scientists (including more than 9,000 PhDs) have signed this petition arguing that there is no convincing evidence supporting AGW theory.
No; it fell out of common use and returned with a slightly different meaning.
> It's not that uncommon.
Neither is herpes.
It may have been, but it 'had been out of use for a long period, [and] has been rejuvenated in recent years' and with a subtly different meaning, too.
So I still claim that, in modern use at least, it's an example of verbing.
Verbing weirds language :-(
> There's no gun to your head to pay taxes
Tried resisting arrest lately? Refuse to pay your taxes, refuse to go to jail, and you'll see the guns soon enough.
Not exactly a government by the people for the people.
This surprises you? The US Government has already used the 'sovereign immunity' excuse to protect the Pope from legal liability related to child abuse.
> LaTeX is hard
You're probably applying it in layers that are too thick.
Yours, mine, what??? Bear in mind I'm Australian myself, so I think we may be talking about the same Government here.
And yes, I know eBay required State approval to change its business model. I'm arguing that that is morally wrong.
Network externalities are a perfectly normal and good consequence of having a large user base. You wouldn't be bitching about network externalities if there was a sufficiently large Linux user base to make desktop Linux viable, now would you?
As to your other point, software patents and process patents are examples of the State being used to support monopolies, and are as you claim very harmful.
Don't you see that the solution here is less State involvement in the market, not more?
The only true monopoly is one enforced by the State. If a 'monopoly' in a free market is sufficiently onerous, that fact in itself will be incentive for the creation of a competitor.
Not all Australians are champions of mixed economies you know. Some of us like our capitalism neat.
Why the hell has the Government got to anything do with this? If eBay customers don't want to use eBay because they're mandating PayPal, they have the right to go elsewhere.
It's a sad day for liberty when the customers of a company get to use force to determine the policies of that company.
"Yes there is," you reply, and hand him your manuals and dice ...
Ultimately, open source software is mutually incompatible with digital rights management. Imagine you had a system built from the ground up on open source software; everything from the BIOS to the document viewing software was open source and thus open to end-user modification. With such a system, there is simply no way to restrict users from viewing content, short of encrypting that content and providing the key only to trusted users.
To take a simple example: imagine you have a PDF that has the 'printable' flag set to false, and you want to print a page from it. Just get the source code to your favourite open source PDF viewer, modify it to ignore said flag, recompile, and print to your heart's content.
> In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is ridiculed for being different.
:-)
How would the blind men know?
I have also confirmed that BigPond used to offer an anti-virus category on their unmetered download page, but that they recently removed it. When I asked why, the CSR with whom I was dealing flat-out lied and claimed they never had such a category. Details on my blog.