Message 03595 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT03527 Message: 45/96 L3 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Re: Free Software is not a gift



Hi all!

Great discussion! This is improving the concepts developed here :-) .

First I'd like to reply to the point if and when obligations are
created.

2 weeks (14 days) ago magius wrote:
2006/10/20, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>:

 * Using Free Software creates no obligations

Uhm..

This term is too generalist. Is not an obligation the principle,
contained in the GNU/GPL license, that is not possible to "privatize"
the product? The GNU/GPL states that the work of the software worker
cannot be alienated (in marxist terms).

Well, of course you are right: If you distribute GPL-ized software
then you need to oblige to some things codified in the license. Except
public domain probably all licences require you to do something when
you distribute. BSD for instance requires that you keep the
attributions.

However, what I was thinking of was *using* Free Software. This indeed
doesn't create any obligations. You can use it as long and as often as
you want whithout any obligations. This is even one of the points in
the Debian Guidelines(?): You may use the software for any type of
endeavor which logically includes having no obligations.

Last week (11 days ago) Stefan Seefeld wrote:
I think that 'obligation' is not the right concept to look at. Typically no use of
software, be it Free or proprietary, creates obligations. As far as usage goes,
'restriction' would be a more meaningful concept to look at.

Well, I think a restriction is some kind of obligation. And the
licenses of proprietary software may even oblige you to do or not do
things when simply *using* it. Just yesterday I heard that with M$
Visual Studio you are not allowed to write Word-like software! Also
there are restrictions/obligations when you want to use the software
on more than one processor for instance. Which is not distributing it
to third parties.

But indeed in the context of gifts "using" is probably a misleading
term. What is probably more correct is "taking" the software. The act
of taking or accepting a gift is what actually creates obligations. If
you don't accept a gift you are not subject to the corresponding
obligations.

Then there was the point about obligations in the cooperation.

Last week (11 days ago) Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Michael Bouwens wrote:
Wouldn't it be more correct to say that it only creates voluntary moral obligations?

Isn't that an oxymoron ?

I'd agree with Stefan here. A voluntary obligation is none.

Whether or not the cooperation in Free Software creates obligations
and in what sense is indeed an interesting question. Certainly it
doesn't create any hard obligations in the sense that you can be sued
for something.

However, participating in a Free Software project creates some
obligations to not disturb the project unnecessarily - which is an
obligation in every social system, however, and as such not specific
to Free Software projects.


						Mit Freien Grüßen

						Stefan

--
Please note this message is written on an offline laptop
and send out in the evening of the day it is written. It
does not take any information into account which may have
reached my mailbox since yesterday evening.

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT03527 Message: 45/96 L3 [In index]
Message 03595 [Homepage] [Navigation]