[Fsf-friends] Item-9 in Open Source Definition

Laxminarayan Kamath kamathln at gmail.com
Wed Nov 26 21:03:22 IST 2008

Probably like Affero-License, you could introduce your own clause for
your own Software. But you should make sure to give your license its
own subname - More like Mani-GPL License.

This is in moral-practical perspective. I don't have much clues as to
the legal matters, and so its better you check with the GPL experts.

On 11/26/08, Mani A <a.mani.cms at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Raj Mathur <raju at linux-delhi.org> wrote:
>> It doesn't deprive users of anything.
> I do not agree to that.
>>To be quite frank, 99.9999% of
>> users don't care what licence the software on a Linux CD falls under as
>> long as it works for them and they can obtain and use it for free.
> In most western countries, the users are so aware that the only way
> out for proprietary software companies is by way of corrupt, illegal
> and unethical practices.
>> There have been and will continue to be pure FOSS Linux distributions,
>> but you probably won't see them gaining much traction in the market.
> Market trends and the increasing income disparities in the population
> indicate that users will only become more wary of trusting proprietary
> closed source stuff and "proprietary closed source scientific
> research".
>> repository.  Requiring a licence to prevent bundling of free and
>> non-free software together seems like overkill.
> Such a license is required for producing truly trustworthy software.
> With the changing nature of software, in future, I should expect such
> a license to be a de facto requirement for any-sane-sense trust in
> computing.
>> To sum up, people who care about FOSS principles will be able to sift
>> out non-free software anyway.  People who don't care about those
>> principles will probably not use a pure-FOSS distribution at all.
> It is not just about choice and principles.
>>> Yes, GPL does say that. But  most concepts of FOSS try to go beyond
>>> that.
>> Wasn't it RMS who wrote v2 and approved v3 of the GPL?  Are you saying
>> that the concepts of FOSS extend far beyond RMS' vision?  Be very
>> careful! ;)
> RMS-sense FOSS is not the GPL. (The cited article is by RMS)
>> automatically.  Make better software so that it is difficult or
>> impossible for proprietary software companies to profit from leasing
>> out software, work towards getting Governments to adopt FOSS and FOSS
> You are looking at only one of the ways used by proprietary software
> companies. They expect to profit in various  other ways. Most
> proprietary closed source software companies have big stakes in the
> organized crime industry too.  The latter is apparently as advanced
> (if not more) as any other industry.
> Best
> A. Mani
> --
> A. Mani
> Member, Cal. Math. Soc
> _______________________________________________
> Fsf-friends mailing list
> Fsf-friends at mm.gnu.org.in
> http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends

Laxminarayan Kamath Ammembal
(+91) 9945036093

More information about the Fsf-friends mailing list