Re: Yet Another Free(?) License
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> At this point I think I'm about to start suggesting these companies like
> Netscape, Apple, and now AT&T just shoot their lawyers and release
> source to the public domain. They've become so paranoid about
> completely imaginary legal liabilities that they're trying to
> release code under shrink-wrap licenses and call it "free". The very
> concept is laughable.
I think you're being too pessimistic here. OK, the licenses that those
packs of corporate lawyers come up with are not free in our
understanding, but then again they are not downright proprietary
either. Actually, we (meaning the free software community as such)
seem to *have* got the companies to change their *business strategies*
for certain kinds of software at least. This is the important point:
no matter how far from actual free licenses we are, the companies
*have* given up the idea of making money from selling licenses to the
software itself. That must be the hardest step for them, and we should
not give up simply because they're still having some trouble with
getting the legal quirks right.
Look at it this way: we're trying to get a world of free software
flying. Some of us are because we think such a world would be
ethically better, some of us because we simply think it will be
a world with better software for everyone.
Until now we've been flying around in little Cessnas, doing some
pretty amazing stunts at air shows and providing vital transport links
to little outposts - but we haven't had much of a place in the big
picture.
Now there's a fleet of jumbos being painted in our colors! And you
seem to be wanting to quit in frustration because the negotiations
for the fuel delivery contracts are a little tough.
> So here's the latest, for the djvu reference library, I haven't even
> bothered to read it
FWIW, it's about as non-free as anything can be and still allow some
form of source code accessability.
--
Henning Makholm
Reply to: