Re: [ox-en] non-commercial software lic
- From: august <august alien.mur.at>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:56:38 +0200 (CEST)
There are plenty of licenses that have non-commercial use
clauses. They are not Free Software or Open Source licenses of course.
yes they are. I guess that depends in how "free" you want to be in
One issue with NC clauses is that some people see them as dangerously
I agree that it would be difficult, but not impossible.
Another is that they are a slippery slope.
what do you mean by a slippery slope?
A third is
that they render the software a whole lot less useful or legally clear
to many groups.
well, the idea would be to render the software a lot less useful to
A fourth is that the freedom to do whatever you want
with a software is important enough in the absolute that whether or
not you are making a profit really doesn't matter.
I really wince when I hear things like "....freedom to do whatever you
want ...." in relation to "free" software. I really don't mean to
knitpick with you Mako, but it sounds so incredibly naive to me. Does
that mean that someone is "free" to use freesoftware to make a destructive
virus? or free to use it to spy illegally on other people's
communications? or free to use it to guide scud missiles at innocent
people? this is the way Vaneever Bush was thinking when he lead the
project that built the nuclear bomb. and, to date, he is praised by
artists and scientists alike.
I, for one, don't think along these lines. I think the illusion of free
software is that it really is "free"... and that it lies outside all these
other social conditions and structural violence. The illusion, I think,
is that the software is neutral, that the technology is neutral. I just
can't see it like that any more.
There are plenty
please name them.
One thing I'd like to add is that FOSS programmers *have* seen the
danger of exploitation that you mention but they choose to tackle in a
way that avoids the problems introduced by NC clauses. The answer is
copyleft which, while not barring use, makes sure that those using it
for "bad" never have an advantage over those using it for good.
how can this be, when certain groups already have an advantage over
individuals or other smaller groups? let's take my motion tracking
example again. jo schmoe who invents it, has nowhere near the influence
of the US military or local police. the disadvantages are already set.
I admit, I'm not full of lots of examples. That's why I'd like to bounce
my ideas off the list here.
Any other free-software programmers thinking along that wavelength?
There's a contradiction in that statement because if programmers were
doing software that barred non-commercial use, they wouldn't be doing
again, this is your non-free interpretation of freeness. btw, I do write
and release GPL software (all of my apps so far have been GPL, one is even
part of the debian distro), so there is at least one individual
free-software programmer that is paranoid enough to think this way.
the main points for me are:
1. Whether one should/could introduce ethical bindings into free software,
2. Where to center control? all lics, even the GPL, are about control.
Maybe, the best first step isn't to realease so much control to groups
that already have a lot of power. Even on free radio in europe, you are
not allowed say anything you desire. there are regulations that prohibit
hate speach, which essentially protect individuals and groups who don't
have the advantages of a sprachrohr.
3. how to get production to be funded? if a commercial venture uses or
distributes a free software, I think it could be an interesting step to
have them legally bound to contribute to that production.
Organization: projekt oekonux.de