Subject: Quick intro to list
From: Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:20:24 -0500 (EST)


  I was told about this list from the license-discuss@opensource.org list 
which suggested this would be a more appropriate list for some of the 
chatter that happens at that list.

  To get an idea of who I am please check out my most recent press release 
in my signature line.  While I have technical experience as a system 
administrator and running a small ISP, my real passion is public policy.  
I've recently been very involved in digital copyright reform in Canada, 
and am now trying to leverage what I know about "commons-based peer 
production" to extend policy and business model analysis out of just 
software to other "works of the mind" such as music.

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 "Make it legal: don't litigate, use creative licensing" campaign.
 A modern answer to P2P: http://www.flora.ca/makelegal200403.shtml
 Canadian File-sharing Legal Information Network http://www.canfli.org/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:09:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>
To: OSI license discussion <license-discuss@opensource.org>
Subject: Re: Help with license decision for "cluster" of similar projects


On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote:

> > When people make non-free derivatives they are "taking from me
> > without paying" in the same way as "software pirates" are claimed to
> > of non-free software.
> 
> Exactly. And in the same way you did not pay Newton or Dekart for what
> you are "taking from them without paying".

  Why are you trying to confuse works for which their copyright has
expired and are in the public domain, and works under copyright from those
who try to use royalty-free copyright licenses in ways that seek economic
rewards other than monopoly rents?

  These are two entirely unrelated concepts you are trying to equate.

> >   The main feature of a BSD-like (non-copyleft) license is that it allows
> > non-free derivatives.
> 
> It is one of the side-effects.

  Talking about copyleft and non-copyleft Free Software (using term as
defined by the FSF) without reference to non-Free Software is like talking
about weight without reference to the concepts of gravity or mass.  These
are not side effects we are talking about.

  I realize you and I don't agree about the sustainability of the
"software manufacturing" methodologies and business models, but lets not
get too biased to entirely exclude the viewpoints of others ;-)

  When you take my copyleft Free Software and make a non-free derivative
it is the same (legally, morally, etc) as if I took your non-free software
without your permission, sold many copies of it for a profit, and never
paid you a cent in royalties.

  I may not agree with your choice to use monopoly rent seeking
"manufacturing era"  business models, but I don't go around claiming that
your business model doesn't exist or that royalty payments are only a
"side effect" of your choice of licensing. I certainly don't go around
infringing your copyright for profit, and if I don't like your business
model I just don't use your software.

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 "Make it legal: don't litigate, use creative licensing" campaign.
 A modern answer to P2P: http://www.flora.ca/makelegal200403.shtml
 Canadian File-sharing Legal Information Network http://www.canfli.org/

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3