On Sunday 29 May 2005 01:52 pm, poisondart wrote: > With the exception of the example with neighbour Bobby (which directly > utilizes my code for profit, in which case is a definite no), I don't > see why your other examples should make me reconsider releasing my > software for free--in all the cases you've described, the answer should > be no.
> [...] You have an awfully possessive attitude for someone who's asking for free help. What are you planning to pay us for the consulting? "Go get a lawyer and pay them for their time, just like any other proprietary code-horder." :-P Only half tongue-in-cheek. ;-) Seriously though, you are violating the community principles that make Python and this newsgroup function. That's a selfish and thoughtless thing to do if you will but think about it for a moment. I have no interest in your software and it pollutes my environment if it is going to spew legal landmines into my life! I'd rather you just charged a license fee so that people would more quickly realize that it is a hazard. That will encourage a truly free replacement to be made, which would actually be of some benefit to the community and (ironically and incidentally) to you as well. The fact is, people who distribute your code for you are doing you a favor which it is not unreasonable for them to receive a remuneration for. The pitiful small cost that the market drives things like CD collections of free software to makes the practical impact of allowing such sales virtually nil. Certainly it has no effect on you. No one I know misrepresents that as "ownership" of the software --- it's just a copying/convenience or review service, and that's what the prices represent. Heck, I can review MS Windows in a magazine, and you'd call it profiteering freely without paying them a license fee. God help us all if the courts were ever to accept such interpretations. And the "principle of the thing" is nonsense: you are asking for something for nothing. If you want the advantages of free software (peer review, easy distribution, etc) you need to embrace the whole package, which includes the most basic user freedoms. *That* would be the principled thing to do. Mind you, "academic use" is also commercial, by your ridiculously broad interpretation of commercial use: Surely other scholars, if they make use of your software will be using it to justify their salaries, won't they? Of course, you're *entitled* to use any twisted, snare-throwing license you like, but don't expect to be respected for it. -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
