license again

2003-11-26
2004-01-26
  • Raphael Bauduin

    Raphael Bauduin - 2003-11-26

    I would like to urge the author to reconsider the GPL, as I think it was misinterpreted. There's no need for another license self-characterised as open source.

    Looking forward to test and possibly contribute to the GPL version ;-)

    Raph

     
    • Anonymous - 2004-01-26

      The Free Education Initiative License is the license that will ALWAYS be used.  If you don't like the license, or don't agree to it, DON'T USE the software...period.  The GPL has flaws in the license that I do not like, so I found a need for a new license, whether you did or not.  When you write your OWN software, then you can decide what license the software is distributed under.  By the way, I am not looking for 'contributors', so please spare me the "if it was GPL, I would contribute" crap, as we all know there are plenty of GPL apps out there, where the majority of users lay on their butts and do nothing to contribute aside from whining and demanding new features.  I'm not on the market for contributors, and never asked for any - the time to 'contribute' was 2 years ago when the project started.  Thanks, but I think I will stick to my attorney's interpretation of the GPL License which is that it DOES allow applications to be distributed bundled with closed source parts.  There are a number of legal flaws and vunerabilities in the license that I am not willing to have applied to my application (such as the GPL having NO stipulations on HOW source code for applications is to be distributed, as my attorney said: A loophole where a big company could say they 'distributed the source code' by placing the code in proprietary package formats on closed networks, and I do not agree with letting people distribute the source code in package formats only certain operating systems can access (i.e so-called source RPMs don't help people on non-RPM systems)... there are already a number of companies using GPL software in their programs who do NOT distribute the source in a way we can get to it.    Anyways,  who are YOU to tell somebody else what to distribute THEIR work under?  It's funny that none of you people are around when it's time to do the real work, just their to bark orders AFTER the fact like a Monday-morning quarterback.  I think I stick with my attorney's advise on this one.  There will NEVER be a version of Pythonol or PyBabelPhish released under the GPL, it simply does not offer the type of protection from big-business that I am looking for.

       
    • Anonymous - 2004-01-26

      One more thing:  The GPL-FAQ also says that its license allows for UNLIMITED distribution of GPL programs for money, and there is NO limit on the price the distributor can charge.  This is EXACTLY what I am trying to avoid with Pythonol and PyBabelPhish, thus, the licensing change several months ago.  If I'm not earning anything for my blood and sweat, it is absolutely stupid to allow some company to earn money off of my work.  No way!  The GPL does not have limits on what can be charged for distributing the software, my license DOES.  Giving somebody the right to freely charge whatever they want for YOUR work is NOT the definition of 'free software', it is the definition of exploitation and stupidity.  The point of this project it to ensure the program is ALWAYS affordable to those who need it. How can that be ensured if I give people the right to charge ANYTHING they want?  (Can we say Microsoft?...because that is exactly where the GPL is headed without some kind of cap on the money that can be charged for distribution)  The Free Education Initiative license offers  freedom to everybody but 'big business' and other exploitative ventures, and it has already been featured on the type of software CDs distributions I wish to target:

      http://www.ofset.org/freeduc-cd/
      http://www.ofset.org/freeduc/browser.php?categoryID=4

      People actually interested in distributing FREE educational  software, not making a profit for their greedy intentions.  Companies and organizations that cannot adhere to the license, simply cannot distribute my software.  All of my other projects, however, are GPL...they don't matter as much to me.  But, this one, has always been close to my heart for personal reasons...so, the license is aimed at making sure that NOBODY (not even myself) ever makes a  penny off of this software  (the license locks ME out of profitable distribution as well!...as it should.)

       

Log in to post a comment.