4 ms·

It isn't obvious to me why he makes this exception. He is very rigorous in many of his other beliefs (GNU/Linux, this "open vs "free" debate). If he does not

It isn't obvious to me why he makes this exception. He is very rigorous in many of his other beliefs (GNU/Linux, this "open vs "free" debate). If he does not agree with BSD/MIT licenses because they inevitably allow companies to limit the "freedom" of their customers, how is selling an exception any different except that the open source project is now making money? I mean an argument could be made at that point that you are selling off your principles to the highest bidder. I don't necessarily believe that, but still...

jordigh 13y ago
He explains why he thinks this is a good thing: the non-copyleft licenses allow producing non-free software, and he doesn't think they're doing a bad thing by allowing this, just weaker. So if non-copyleft isn't ethically wrong, then selling exceptions isn't wrong either.
jasonlotito 13y ago
I found his reasoning very clear. "Selling exceptions means that the copyright holder of the code releases it to the public under a free software license, then lets customers pay for permission to use the same code under different terms, for instance allowing its inclusion in proprietary applications." Users still have access to the same exact code. There is no loss. He goes to on further detail what you might find confusing: "We must distinguish the practice of selling exceptions from something crucially different: proprietary extensions or proprietary versions of a free program. These two activities, even if practiced simultaneously by one company, are different issues. In selling exceptions, the same code that the exception applies to is available to the general public as free software. An extension or a modified version that is only available under a proprietary license is proprietary software, pure and simple, and no better than any other proprietary software. This article is concerned with cases that involve strictly and only the sale of exceptions."
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Users still have access to the same exact code. There is no loss. Sure, there's loss of what the other party builds on top of the code. While I don't think this is a real loss, the argument that it is is exactly the argument that Stallman uses against the desirability of non-copyleft licenses, so Stallman's positions on these issues seem incoherent viewed together, even if each might be viewed as reasonable enough on its own.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    But he doesn't say the above is ideal, he says it's not unethical - which he also says of permissive licenses.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      Isn't selling the exception explicitly enabling the proprietary extension, rendering the dual licensor essentially a partner in profit regarding the proprietary software?
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        It doesn't enable proprietary extension any more than permissive licensing does - in fact, less so since it comes at a cost. Meanwhile, it also provides some funding for Free Software development. I can't imagine how that would be worse than a permissive license.
intslack 13y ago
He's made the suggestion to companies so that they would make software free which were/would have otherwise been proprietary. I wouldn't say he likes it though. There's the video of Brian Aker trying to antagonise rms at FOSS 2009[1], wherein rms lays out some additional rationale, if you're interested. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSydSpDQtpA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSydSpDQtpA
chriswarbo 13y ago
Stallman's goal is not to prohibit proprietary software; but to have a world where most people choose Free Software (whether they're aware of it or not), so that it would be difficult to convince anyone to use proprietary software. Compare this to our current situation, where everyone's so used to clicking "I Agree" on an EULA screen before they can use a program that many Free Software programs (most famously Firefox) started including such screens, even though there is no requirement to agree to any terms before using them! Of course, there are usually terms related to redistribution and re-use of the code, but that can be done without ever seeing such a screen. Stallman doesn't disagree with BSD/MIT licenses; he only advocates the GPL as a short-term measure to get to the goal quicker. BSD/MIT code is (usually) a valued contribution, as it lifts everyone up equally; Free Software is lifted, but so is proprietary software since it is trivial for anyone to repackage it as proprietary. That's fine if your goal is to advance the state-of-the-art, give unimpeded access to better security, get your ideas out there, etc. but it doesn't do very much for (or against) the goal of having mostly Free Software. The only way to go the other way and turn proprietary software into Free Software is by a dedicated effort on the part of the copyright holder (who may be dead!). Hence the playing field is heavily biased in proprietary software's favour, which endangers the mostly-Free goal. The GPL tries to rebalance things by going the other way. In a mostly-Free world, this bias would (hopefully) be counteracted by the inertia of Free Software, so the GPL would be unnecessary and the more permissive licenses would be a better choice. Notice that Open Source didn't feature in the paragraphs above, since it's unrelated. That's Stallman's argument: it misses the point. He doesn't say it's intrinsically bad, although it may cause indirect harm to Free Software through distraction and confusion. Of course it also does indirect good, by leading people to Free Software who would never have been exposed to a purely Free Software message.
- eigenen 13y ago
  > Compare this to our current situation, where everyone's so used to clicking "I Agree" on an EULA screen before they can use a program that many Free Software programs (most famously Firefox) started including such screens, even though there is no requirement to agree to any terms before using them! This is in part due to the fact that for a long time it was difficult to forgo the EULA screen on the Nullsoft Scriptable Install System, which a lot of free software projects were using for their Windows ports.
chriswarbo 13y ago
> ...how is selling an exception any different except that the open source project is now making money? I mean an argument could be made at that point that you are selling off your principles to the highest bidder. Ah, but the beauty of it is that the principles haven't been sold. It's still Free Software, which is all that matters. Except now, it is Free Software funded by proprietary software companies.

jordigh 13y ago

He explains why he thinks this is a good thing: the non-copyleft licenses allow producing non-free software, and he doesn't think they're doing a bad thing by allowing this, just weaker. So if non-copyleft isn't ethically wrong, then selling exceptions isn't wrong either.

jasonlotito 13y ago

I found his reasoning very clear. "Selling exceptions means that the copyright holder of the code releases it to the public under a free software license, then lets customers pay for permission to use the same code under different terms, for instance allowing its inclusion in proprietary applications." Users still have access to the same exact code. There is no loss. He goes to on further detail what you might find confusing: "We must distinguish the practice of selling exceptions from something crucially different: proprietary extensions or proprietary versions of a free program. These two activities, even if practiced simultaneously by one company, are different issues. In selling exceptions, the same code that the exception applies to is available to the general public as free software. An extension or a modified version that is only available under a proprietary license is proprietary software, pure and simple, and no better than any other proprietary software. This article is concerned with cases that involve strictly and only the sale of exceptions."

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Users still have access to the same exact code. There is no loss. Sure, there's loss of what the other party builds on top of the code. While I don't think this is a real loss, the argument that it is is exactly the argument that Stallman uses against the desirability of non-copyleft licenses, so Stallman's positions on these issues seem incoherent viewed together, even if each might be viewed as reasonable enough on its own.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  But he doesn't say the above is ideal, he says it's not unethical - which he also says of permissive licenses.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Isn't selling the exception explicitly enabling the proprietary extension, rendering the dual licensor essentially a partner in profit regarding the proprietary software?
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      It doesn't enable proprietary extension any more than permissive licensing does - in fact, less so since it comes at a cost. Meanwhile, it also provides some funding for Free Software development. I can't imagine how that would be worse than a permissive license.

intslack 13y ago

He's made the suggestion to companies so that they would make software free which were/would have otherwise been proprietary. I wouldn't say he likes it though. There's the video of Brian Aker trying to antagonise rms at FOSS 2009[1], wherein rms lays out some additional rationale, if you're interested. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSydSpDQtpA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSydSpDQtpA

chriswarbo 13y ago

Stallman's goal is not to prohibit proprietary software; but to have a world where most people choose Free Software (whether they're aware of it or not), so that it would be difficult to convince anyone to use proprietary software. Compare this to our current situation, where everyone's so used to clicking "I Agree" on an EULA screen before they can use a program that many Free Software programs (most famously Firefox) started including such screens, even though there is no requirement to agree to any terms before using them! Of course, there are usually terms related to redistribution and re-use of the code, but that can be done without ever seeing such a screen. Stallman doesn't disagree with BSD/MIT licenses; he only advocates the GPL as a short-term measure to get to the goal quicker. BSD/MIT code is (usually) a valued contribution, as it lifts everyone up equally; Free Software is lifted, but so is proprietary software since it is trivial for anyone to repackage it as proprietary. That's fine if your goal is to advance the state-of-the-art, give unimpeded access to better security, get your ideas out there, etc. but it doesn't do very much for (or against) the goal of having mostly Free Software. The only way to go the other way and turn proprietary software into Free Software is by a dedicated effort on the part of the copyright holder (who may be dead!). Hence the playing field is heavily biased in proprietary software's favour, which endangers the mostly-Free goal. The GPL tries to rebalance things by going the other way. In a mostly-Free world, this bias would (hopefully) be counteracted by the inertia of Free Software, so the GPL would be unnecessary and the more permissive licenses would be a better choice. Notice that Open Source didn't feature in the paragraphs above, since it's unrelated. That's Stallman's argument: it misses the point. He doesn't say it's intrinsically bad, although it may cause indirect harm to Free Software through distraction and confusion. Of course it also does indirect good, by leading people to Free Software who would never have been exposed to a purely Free Software message.

eigenen 13y ago
> Compare this to our current situation, where everyone's so used to clicking "I Agree" on an EULA screen before they can use a program that many Free Software programs (most famously Firefox) started including such screens, even though there is no requirement to agree to any terms before using them! This is in part due to the fact that for a long time it was difficult to forgo the EULA screen on the Nullsoft Scriptable Install System, which a lot of free software projects were using for their Windows ports.

chriswarbo 13y ago

> ...how is selling an exception any different except that the open source project is now making money? I mean an argument could be made at that point that you are selling off your principles to the highest bidder. Ah, but the beauty of it is that the principles haven't been sold. It's still Free Software, which is all that matters. Except now, it is Free Software funded by proprietary software companies.