Re: is free, open source software ethical?

user923005 <dcorbit@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> Oh, wait, they don't sell the CD -- that's a violation of GPL
> -- they sell a service contract.  

No, you've got this completely wrong. I don't understand
why, it is easy to find official position on the GNU website

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Other people, with no interest in copyright or technology
manage to grasp this point. See

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/faq.html#gnu

They have their own, different, position

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/bfaq.html#freebooks

which I quote:

    But there is another, deeper reason to think twice about
    selling Dhamma books. Since the Buddha's time, the
    teachings have traditionally been given away free of
    charge, passing freely from teacher to student, from
    friend to friend. The teachings are regarded as
    priceless, and have been conveyed to us across the
    centuries by an unbroken stream of generosity --- the
    very foundation of all the Buddha's teachings. That
    tradition continues with the production of free Dhamma
    books. From the author, the stream flows onwards through
    those who give their time to editing, typesetting, and
    printing the book; through the donors who sponsor the
    printing; and through those who take care of
    distribution and mailing. If you are fortunate enough to
    receive a book borne on this stream of generosity, you
    learn an important lesson of Dhamma long before you even
    open the cover. The instant someone puts a price tag on
    a Dhamma book, you not only have to pay money for it,
    but you get a little bit less in return: you get a book
    that is merely about Dhamma, instead of one that is
    itself an example of Dhamma in action. Which one do you
    think has greater value?

They do not place their translations under a GPL style
licence because they are philosophically opposed to their
sale. Now that you have seen a real life example of people
with a philosophical commitment to free=gratis rejecting GPL
licencing of their own work, because it permits sale, you
are in a better position to understand the GPL.

GPL forbids unbundling the rights. Sell all or none, the
choice is yours, but don't try to divide society into
Digital Lords, with the full bundle of rights, and Digital
Peasants, with only usage rights.

Alan Crowe
Edinburgh
Scotland