Software licenses and releasing Python programs for review

[Terry Hancock]

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