Picking a license
in [Python]
|
Prev: 2to3 issues with execfile on python 3.0 on files with encoding
Next: Extract a bordered, skewed rectangle from an image
From: Aahz on 17 May 2010 00:28 In article <87r5ldbw3k.fsf(a)benfinney.id.au>, Ben Finney <ben+python(a)benfinney.id.au> wrote: >aahz(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes: >> >> You can't really sell Open Source software in any practical way; >> someone will always undercut you once it's out in the wild. You can >> only sell support for the software, which is entirely different. > >Not at all. I've been selling all the software I write for clients for >the past ten years, and it's all free software. It's been very practical >for me and those I've worked with. > >You can't sell free software like selling loaves of bread, but that's a >much more limited case and a far cry from your claim. Selling free >software is quite practical and a good way to fund development of >software that otherwise wouldn't be written as free software. From my POV, if you're not selling COTS, you're really selling support and consulting services, because that's what keeps your competitors from just picking up your software and reselling it for cheaper. BTDT. -- Aahz (aahz(a)pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx prgrmmng.
From: Ben Finney on 17 May 2010 18:05 aahz(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes: > Ben Finney <ben+python(a)benfinney.id.au> wrote: > >[It is impractical to] sell free software like selling loaves of > >bread, but that's a much more limited case and a far cry from your > >claim [that it's impractical to sell free software]. Selling free > >software is quite practical and a good way to fund development of > >software that otherwise wouldn't be written as free software. > > From my POV, if you're not selling COTS, you're really selling support > and consulting services, because that's what keeps your competitors > from just picking up your software and reselling it for cheaper. BTDT. This thread has revealed some staggering gulfs in concepts as held by different people. For example, I don't think it's at all germane to the definition of “sell FOO” that “your competitors can pick up the FOO and resell it cheaper”. Whether they can or not, that doesn't change that fact that one is selling FOO. Moreover, I don't try to prevent my competitors from reselling the software (so long as they don't misrepresent who holds copyright or further restrict the terms). That's part and parcel of the freedoms in the software. Indeed, I find that helps the customers trust me more and tend to come back when they want something else new; and my customers are free to show others the solutions I've already implemented. Thus is an ongoing business relationship crafted, including return customers and referrals for new work. It really is practical to sell free software. -- \ “It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” | `\ —Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire | _o__) | Ben Finney
From: geremy condra on 17 May 2010 18:48 This whole conversation is ridiculous, and better suited to slashdot than python-list. Is it really necessary for it to continue? Geremy Condra
From: Robert Kern on 18 May 2010 12:03 On 2010-05-16 09:25 , Ed Keith wrote: > > --- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > >> From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro<ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> >> Subject: Re: Picking a license >> To: python-list(a)python.org >> Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 11:09 PM >> In message<mailman.164.1273846256.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, >> Ed Keith >> wrote: >> >>> But if my client give someone else a copy of the >> binary I gave them, they >>> are now in violation. >> >> Why would they be in violation? It seems to me a violation >> would only occur >> if someone asked them for the source, and they refused. >> -- >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >> > > No, the GPL makes it clear that the responsibly is on the distributor to either supply the source or written notice, Caveat venditor. The violation exists regardless of whether or not the recipient makes a request. No, one of the options for you is that you make the source available upon request. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco
From: Patrick Maupin on 18 May 2010 13:22
On May 18, 11:03 am, Robert Kern <robert.k...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-16 09:25 , Ed Keith wrote: > > No, the GPL makes it clear that the responsibly is on the distributor to either supply the source or written notice, Caveat venditor. The violation exists regardless of whether or not the recipient makes a request. > > No, one of the options for you is that you make the source available upon request. Do you have a citation for that? My reading, of both GPL v2 section 3 and GPL v3 section 6, is that someone distributing GPL licensed object must do one of the following: - supply the source with the object - supply a written offer for source with the object - supply a copy of someone else's written offer for source with the object (only allowed sometimes) - Perhaps verbally communicate an offer (GPL v2 only, very liberal reading of 3c, but even then the communication must "accompany" the object distribution). - supply object by "offering access from a designated place" as long as you "offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place" or "you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source". That last one effectively has "written offer" defined in a slightly different way ("maintain clear directions"), and also might allow you to just have a pile of source DVDs adjacent to a pile of object CDs with no explicit written offer, but I honestly can't see how even that can be stretched to cover just handing somebody an object CD without even mentioning that source is available, and then only later giving them source if they explicitly ask for it. Sure, if you give somebody source after they ask for it, you have probably "cured" any violation, but I think the very act of handing someone an object CD without source or a written offer of source would put you in violation of the license at the time you give them the object CD. It may be that saying "oh, by the way, source code's available if you want it" would suffice in some cases under GPL v2, but it doesn't look like that would work at all for GPL v3. Regards, Pat |