Gratis/Libre

[Matthew Flaschen]

Jan Vancura wrote:
> The only mistake is saying that Ubuntu is committed to being open
> source. 

I really don't think this was a mistake.  The philosophy page
(http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/philosophy) makes it pretty clear that
Ubuntu defines itself as open source.

> What we really mean is it's commited to being free, as defined
> by the FSF.

Again, this is addressed specifically.  The same page makes it clear
that Ubuntu is also meant as Free Software.

> And yes, that implies that Ubuntu will always be free of
> charge.

IANAL, not even a beginning one, but I disagree here.  This only implies
that people will always have the right to redistribute it (at least the
Free parts) for no charge.  However, it does *NOT* imply anyone *has* to
provide it gratis.

> It just implies that there is, and always will be the option of getting it
> free of charge

There will probably always be gratis versions of Ubuntu.  This is
because it is very popular, and people have the *right* to provide
gratis copies.  However, there are no guarantees.

> [T]he license requires this from anyone who offers
> Ubuntu at all.

There is no one license that governs Ubuntu.  There are dozens of
different FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) licenses.  None of
them require anyone to give away copies gratis.

> Once again, being open source does not imply it - a proprietary licence
> could be open-source as well.

That is wrong.  Proprietary and open source (as defined by the Open
Source Initiative) are mutually exclusive.  Code under a proprietary
license is never OSI-approved Open Source; the Philosophy page
recognizes OSI's definition.

> Being free implies [...] being opensource.

That's not true.  There are a few Free licenses (as recognized by the
FSF) that are not OSI-approved Open Source, and vice-versa; however,
note that the FSF doesn't have the strict approve/deny process that OSI
does.  Ubuntu (as I understand it) uses code under licenses recognized
by at least one

> Selling implies transfer of ownership, or, in case of software, bestowing special rights with a
> license (which de facto allows the vendor to sell without giving much,
> through a well constructed EULA, or at least from his PoV).

No, in fact software with EULA's is "licensed, not sold".  As I
understand it, this is so they can weaken your first sale rights, among
other things.  Free software doesn't need to do that, so it is always
sold.  That's why you don't need to agree to Free licenses before using
the software, only before distributing it (the GPL explicitly says this,
but it's true for others unless they demand agreement for use *and* have
click-wrap) .

Matthew Flaschen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20061223/2daaeca3/attachment.pgp>