Re: package astrolog
scripsit Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>:
> Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@kinias.org> writes:
>
> > I've been in communication with upstream, and he says that the only
> > thing he intends to prohibit is someone charging money for his free
> > program
>
> Like, say, putting the program on a storage medium and charging people
> for it? Or charging money to install the program? Or charging money to
> include it as part of a service?
(1) I believe all these are fine. What's not fine with upstream is someone
saying `want a copy of this package? send me $20 by Paypal and I'll let
you download a single copy -- but you can't use it on more than one
machine'. He doesn't mind the software being part of a business that
makes money, but doesn't want it being made (what he sees as) non-free.
It's part of the general idea of `do what you will with it, but don't
make it less free than you found it'.
> Many people do those things and more with Debian or parts of it, and
> we want that to continue.
Of course.
> > (or charging money for a simple dump of the output of his free
> > program; he specifically says he has no objection otherwise to its
> > use in the course of commercial or any other activity.
>
> That's already too much. Free software includes the freedom to charge
> money for it.
Please see (1) above.
I agree that upstream's restrictions do not match with GPL, for example,
much less BSDish licensing... but I'm not sure they make it DFSG-unfree.
> > I _think_ that is good enough to move the program out of non-free,
> > as I can't see what part of DFSG is being violated. The only
> > question I had was about `No Discrimination Against Fields of
> > Endeavor', but upstream assures he that is not the intent.
>
> That's a contradiction. "Charge money for the software" *is* a field
> of endeavour, that in no way restricts the freedom of the software.
Is it? I understood the Fields of Endeavo(u)r clause differently, based
on the examples given -- viz., commerce and genetics. I.e., Free
software can't restrict what type of work you use it in.
> To deny the recipient the freedom to charge money is to make the
> software non-free.
Can we be more specific on this? I ask that because -- as I understand
it -- the crucial distinction is between (i) making a business out of
using free software, such as charging for CDs, charging for services
like installation, etc., and (ii) charging for the _software itself_.
Upstream specifically agreed that (this being astrology software) a
professional astrologer using the software as part of the service for
which he charged money is OK. Charging for the software itself or its
direct output (like redirecting STDOUT to a file and charging for the
file) is what he considers putting further restrictions that violate his
concept of keeping his work free.
> > Upstream can't relicense under GPL, for example, because he has
> > accepted code from other contributors under the existing terms.
>
> That's always an unfortunate situation, to be sure. It's not
> impossible, though, as demonstrated by the relicensing that occurred
> with Linux (from an early non-free license to GPLv2). Or he could
> attempt to contact those people and get their permission to change the
> license terms on a future release.
Or I may be able to remove the code that's under other people's
copyright if I could get upstream to agree to a relicensing of his own
code. AFAICT what's under others' copyright is some specific functions
which may be removable or replaceable.
--
Thanasis Kinias
Doctoral Candidate, Department of History, and
Instructor, Professional Enhancement Programs
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
.
Je ne viens d'aucun pays, d'aucune cité, d'aucune tribu. Je suis fils de la
route, ma patrie est caravane, et ma vie la plus inattendue des traversées.
-- Amin Maalouf, _Léon l'Africain_
Reply to: