On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Patrick
<patrick@spellingbeewinnars.org> wrote:
Hi Michal
I think no legal solution will solve this problem completely (e.g. you
can buy illegally copied discs with proprietary software). A license
that allows selling and requires including appropriate attribution
notices could solve that misinformation problem in some cases. You want
parents to know about your software, in the past discs sold with
collections of software could be useful for this, while a no-selling
license would disallow making it known this way.
I don't really want to do this but I have thought about selling binaries and source without makefiles. The code base will include Ada and I think a lot of people will have trouble compiling it without a makefile(or GPR file)
This seems sneaky and underhanded but might be a setup from shipping fully closed source.
I am not blaming him but I think if he chose a different licence for
his work, things might have been different. What Torvalds did to him
was specifically allowed by the GPL his desire to have people refer to
the OS as GNU/Linus is based on honour and not law.
Would a legal solution be as effective as requiring making the source
code available? It clearly doesn't work for Chinese tablets with Linux.
China and India are my biggest fears. Thousands upon thousands of laboratory jobs have been sent to these places. Here in Ontario, Canada the biosciences sector is all but destroyed. It won't help to sell closed source software to these markets but it could make sense to give closed source and charge for support. This really seems like the only viable option but I really want to find something that will make sense and be source included though...
[0] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#require
I am not going to be able to live up to the 4 freedoms of software but I hope I can live up to 3 !