Gratis/Libre

[Jan Vancura]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but this would be implied by saying it is Free, and therefore
stating it seperately is redundant.

> 
>> 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.

Allow me to quote the GPL (Admittedly _not_ the synonym of Free
Software, but close to it):

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html:
<quote>
3.  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and
2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable
copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms
of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange; or,
    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only
for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in
object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with
Subsection b above.)
</quote>

Only one imaginable situation where there is no way of obtaining Ubuntu
for free arises, and that is when these conditions are fulfilled:
- - all existing copies of Ubuntu are held by a group of people, and all
of them will abide these conditions. (Number of copies can be 0)
- - no holder is willing to give you a copy of Ubuntu for free
- - whenever any holder sells a copy of ubuntu, they give the sourcecode
with it (in order to avoid the option of accessibility by a third party
in case b)).
- - whenever any holder sells a copy, they have to make absolutely sure
the new holder will also follow these rules. A single breach will make
Ubuntu available for free.
- - there is no way to access their data

So, this situation is extremely unprobable, and I believe it is within
reasonable assumption that it will never happen, and therefore we can
freely state that being GPL implies being available free of charge or
not being available at all.

>> [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.

Agreed. For simplicity's sake, I assumed GPL, as I believe it is one of
the more restrictive free software licences, and therefore, by lowest
common denominator, will govern the redistribution (ommiting the
proprietary blobs we have in Ubuntu, but we aren't guaranteeing these
will be available, of course).

>> 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.

OK, I was probably mistaken, because of the misleading term the OSI
chose for their stuff :)
Got a link handy?

However, I was under the impression that anything that wasn't free was
proprietary, and not everything that was opensource was free, and
therefore there must exist something that is opensource and
proprietary... unless there exists something that is neither proprietary
nor free... oooh, logic :)

> 
>> 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

ONce again, I don't follow OSI's definitions, as I don't know them.
Being free implies having accissible source codes, thus in my
terminology, being open source.
FSF does have a strict compatible/non-compatible resolution.

>> 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.

Yes.

> Free software doesn't need to do that, so it is always
> sold.

No. Selling implies transfer of ownership.

> 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) .

Yes.

I suggest we continue this off the list, if you wish to continue. I'm
particularly enjoying this, as training :)

- --
Jenda Vančura <jenda at ubuntu.com>
GnuPG: 519D056A
Jabber me at jendavancura at gmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFjd5fkfxlW1GdBWoRAqcwAJ9R8fgLozXJTpUMMA2tZGvym6PtEgCg1HYO
PU5OwxaUH77I7cUs3Fq8x9Y=
=pjbK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----