> On at 2018-11-05 18:01 +0000, Bret Johnson wrote: > > Being the author of two of the items mentioned (USBDOS & SLOWDOWN), I can > > say that there is no problem in including them with FreeDOS. SLOWDOWN is a > > much older program than USBDOS, and the licensing and even my opinions of > > what the licensing should be have changed over the years. > > > > What I want is for all of my programs and their derivatives to be free, in > > every sense of the word, for people and businesses to USE. I don't want > > them making non-free stuff, in any sense of the word, from the programs > > themselves or their source code. > > > > I realize this is kind of a hard and foreign concept to relate to other > > people, but I want my programs to be forever free in every sense of the > > word. I don't differentiate between "free beer" and "free speech" as some > > others tend to do. My programs are free, just like salvation is free. I > > will also give the source code for any of my programs to anybody who wants > > it (although some of it is quite messy) as long as they "keep it free". >
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:58 PM C. Masloch <[email protected]> wrote: > > Your USBINTRO.DOC says: > > > You also cannot distribute the programs, documentation, or > > source code and charge (even indirectly) for their distribution. > > You can charge someone enough to cover your actual, direct costs > > for distribution (disks, shipping materials, postage, etc.), but > > cannot charge for "handling". This also means that you cannot > > distribute the programs, documentation, or source code directly > > from a web site that charges a "registration fee" in an attempt > > to make a profit or to recover direct or indirect costs for > > maintaining the web site. > > This I believe is incompatible with FLOSS as defined by the FSF and OSI. > > Anyway, in the interest of avoiding license proliferation, it'd be very > convenient if you switched to a well-known license like the GNU GPL > (v2-only, v2+ or v3+). That makes it easier on any user who wants to > understand (and honour) your usage conditions, because they'll already > be familiar with the GPL from other occurrences of it. I agree that it would be better to use a recognized license. For what you (Bret) are trying to represent for keeping your programs free, and preventing people from making versions that are not-free, the GNU GPL v2 would be great in my opinion. That's up to you. I can use what you've provided (I'll include your other note in the wiki) but a recognized license like GNU GPL v2 would be best. Jim _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
