Software licenses and releasing Python programs for review

[Terry Hancock]

On Thursday 02 June 2005 01:42 am, poisondart wrote:
> If this thread has shown anything it is I'm a bit green with respect to
> software licenses,

Yep.  We've all been there at some time, though. ;-)

> but the other thing is that I consider myself as an
> isolated case and I wanted to know if there were others who wanted the
> same thing as me.

I think the real problem is that you *think* you want something which is
not what you *really* want.  For example, I think you don't really get the
full range of implications of a "non-commercial" clause, nor do you fully
appreciate its chilling effects on development.

> I'm curious to know what the money that open source or GPL'd projects
> get and what this money means to these people's overall income.

Free-licensed projects get almost no direct money for development in
probably 99% of cases.

On the other hand, people make billions of dollars every year off of the
*use* of free-licensed software (consider Apache, for example).  Quite a
few of the people making the money are naturally part of the developer
community for their particular gravy-train.

That's because they generally have specific needs they want to see the
software address, and it's worth the effort to contribute the necessary
changes.  The community benefits from the changes (which is why
"copyleft" is good), and they benefit (a lot!) from not having to maintain
a separate patched version of the code.

> I am
> sure that any amount would motivate somebody to continue their work on
> a project, but myself in particular, I consider my project to be a tool
> for teaching and I view teaching as helping others...which I would
> gladly offer without price.

So you're unpaid teacher?  What do you do for a living, then?  ;-)

> I wanted to see if there were others who
> shared my view of helping others freely with their knowledge.

Actually, you see, as I've already tried to point out to you,
using software to teach *is* COMMERCIAL USE of the software.  At
least it is, if you draw a salary for teaching. Yes, I know that teaching
is a public benefit and a joy, and I do occasionally teach for free, but
most of the time, even teachers need to make a living, right?  Is it
right to restrict use of the software only to those who teach without
pay?

> Yes, what I ask may seem ridiculous, but I don't view it that way.
> Instead, I find that it is the implication of using a restrictive
> license such as I described to be ridiculous: if there is no monetary
> gain option in the license, then this implies that nobody (or very few)
> will be willing to do any work or "asking for something for nothing".
> It isn't for nothing if you value knowledge and learning.

It took me awhile to parse that:  You are saying that the implication that
the lack of a "monetary gain option" will chill development is ridiculous.

Sorry, but history disagrees with you: projects with restrictions on sale
prices for copies of the software have much reduced distribution and
development interest, because it prevents distribution.  Note that prices
will be driven down by natural market forces anyway --- just because
source A can sell a copy of free software doesn't prevent source B from
giving it away, and this is in practice what happens.  But it does allow
source A to bundle copies and cover CD-ROM distribution and
printing expenses, pay for web and FTP servers, etc.  Even if they only
capture a small "pay for convenience" market, they may be able to do
this, thus providing an important resource for users of free software.

When you put in a clause to restrict such sales you are attacking a
friendly: somebody who the community values as a service provider.
It may well be that 9/10ths of my free software is downloaded directly
from developer sites or from free download sites, but even many of those
sites are supported by advertising, and I want the OPTION to buy 
copies on a CD if I need or want to.  That's not at all the same as buying
proprietary software, where I would be FORCED to make such a purchase,
and then at an artificially inflated price.

Finally, you are wrongly conflating a "restriction against selling copies"
with a "restriction against all commercial use of the software".  The latter
includes virtually EVERY use of the software if interpreted broadly 
enough.  You yourself appear to take a very broad view of this --- with
one exception: you paradoxically do not regard drawing a salary as a
teacher as "commercial".   But a salary supported partly by the use
of software is one of the  more clearcut ways to commercially benefit ---
much more direct than supporting advertising revenues, which you
*do* regard as commercial.  This is a contradiction, which just goes
to show how poorly defined the idea of "commercial use" is, and
therefore why it is a bad thing to try to control in a license.

> I admit that my view is a bit idealistic which leads me to believe that
> maybe I should reconsider the whole decision altogether.

Actually, I think you're being hypocritical in thinking that it is idealistic
to regard your salary as a teacher as somehow "non-commercial".   You
have succombed to the "higher profession" delusion. Sure, you might
love your work, but do you really want someone to *force* you to do it
for free?  How are you going to pay for your supper, then?  Do you
feel that you should have to take up another job to support your
teaching habit?  Do you think that society would benefit from forcing
teachers to do that? I  certainly don't.

That's what I think you should be reconsidering.  You have somehow
tricked yourself into thinking that you are not an economic being just
because you work in academia, and then you are going on to scoff
at other people for being economic --- putting you into the realm of
hypocrisy.

Now, it might be perfectly realistic (and indeed, idealistic) to imagine
that such commercial concerns should not effect what you teach, or
how you teach it.  But that *can* be true in any form of human
endeavor --- teaching is not unique in this respect. Even a farmer
may farm more out of love of the vocation than because it is
particularly profitable (which, as with teaching, it often is not).  Should
a farmer be regarded as some dirty capitalist because he uses Gnumeric
to tally his accounts?  That is commercial use of the software.

I think you will actually get what you want by just using a copyleft
free-license like the GPL.  This will prevent the software from being
absorbed into a commercial proprietary product, which is what I
consider the reasonable part of what you are asking for.

--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks  http://www.anansispaceworks.com