Re: "proprietary", was Re: ada on linux

[tmoran@bix.com]

>The license does NOT permit any redistribution.  Microsoft
I think you mean "the kind of license typically given to an end
user allows him to run, but not redistribute, the program".  And
other licenses, typically given to retailers, allow
redistribution, and still others given to system vendors may
allow a variety of different things.  The point is, your statement
sounds like a general one about licenses (or at least "proprietary
software" licenses) but in fact it's a specific statement about
just one kind of license, and in that way misleading.

>Well you misunderstand, if you receive a software package under
>the GPL, you are absolutely free to redistribute what you
  If you receive a cake, are you free to redistribute it only in
its entirety, or in slices?  Does the GPL allow you the freedom to
redistribute portions of what you received, for instance, just the
binary?  Does it allow you to examine the software, decide it has
a very low probability of bugs, and then to redistribute it backed
with a warranty?  Your "absolutely free" is in fact a freedom with
very definite, and sometimes onerous, restrictions, and in that
way misleading.

> > If you offer a product that is, or uses, GPLed software, are
> > you effectively required to charge for support?
> Again, completely out of left field. Just because you offer
> a product which is GPL'ed does not create any support
> obligations at all. If you do offer support, then the
> terms and conditions of the support will deal with the
> issue of modifications.
  Is it really practical to offer GPLed software with source code
and support like "We offer no-cost support for this product, as
long as you have made no changes.  If you have changed anything,
it makes it harder for us to help you, so you must pay $xxx for
support.  If you say you've made no changes, and we spend time
helping you, and it turns out you have in fact made changes, then
you must $yyy for the time we've spent."  I suspect that in
practice, ie, "effectively", you will find that you *must* charge for
support, or you'll lose a lot of time and money giving free
support to some people who create problems and then lie about the
source of those problems.

>GPL is not the right license to use in this situation.
If Jones writes a program, can he offer it under different
licensing arrangement to different people, one of those
arrangements being the GPL?

>Certainly I understand that you (or rather the company you
>work for) have decided to use restrictive licenses, and that
  Calling other people's licenses "restrictive" and your own
"absolutely free", is not, IMHO, a fair statement of the case.