Vincent >For another software with many important contributors it would indeed be >impossible. But then the software would not have existed in the first place
>with a non-free license, so. This discussion is getting nowhere; I politely disagree and see no solution; never is it right to development software using public money and to then deny access to the people that support the development of that software - the tax payer. And I can't see why the software would not have existed if it was indeed developed at an institute with public funding. It appears that have been a tremendous amount of brain washing exercised by GNU GPL converts; it has preyed on the dark side of human nature - the idea of getting something for nothing - "free". >In the beginning of this thread you complained that scientists wanted >software for free ! Now it's my turn - but to use my software I'm not asking >for money, but rather for sharing your contribution in return. I afraid again that I cannot give you the source code of the software I write as it does not belong to me. You see I abide by international laws and treaties. You are however "free" to buy the articles describing the algorithms in the journals that I have published in. They are quite detailed and someone of your calibre should quite easily cope. All the best Alan -----Original Message----- From: Vincent Favre-Nicolin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 25 March 2007 9:02 AM To: rietveld_l@ill.fr Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ccp4bb] Nature policy update regarding source code] Alan, > As it stands however the reality of a GNU GPL license is that if a > manufacture wanted to modify and include a program licensed under it in > order to sell a larger manufacturing process for commercial purposes then > they would be denied access unless all 10 people who wrote the software > gave explicit permission, even if the software was written using public > money. In the case of Fox, most of the code (>>95%) rights belong to me & the uni of Geneva, so if I had to 'sell' the code with the Uni of Geneva, I could rewrite the other parts easily. For another software with many important contributors it would indeed be impossible. But then the software would not have existed in the first place with a non-free license, so. > GNU GLP is divisive, it divides, its practices exclusivity and it's a sham > in my view. Denial of access is what this all about. You are denied access only if you want to modify & distribute as a closed source program - for all other purposes you are absolutely free. It is a fairly strong policy, but there are huge benefits - just look at all the "free" OS available - BSDs and Linuxes. The most important difference between the two are the licenses they put forward (even if they share a lot of software, both under bsd and gpl licenses). Linux is much more successful because a *lot* of developers wouldn't release their source code if they thought that their contribution could be used in a closed source project without their approval. This is what makes the GPL useful - it gathers many developers around it, as they feel the lifetime of their code will be longer with that license. As for commercial developers who are excluded from using GPL'ed code, if they cannot buy the code using another license then they still have access to the source code and can rewrite the parts they want - under corporate finances they should have the means for that. In the beginning of this thread you complained that scientists wanted software for free ! Now it's my turn - but to use my software I'm not asking for money, but rather for sharing your contribution in return. Vincent -- Vincent Favre-Nicolin Université Joseph Fourier http://v.favrenicolin.free.fr ObjCryst & Fox : http://objcryst.sourceforge.net
