Launchpad to be free

[Ben Scott]

DISCLAIMER: I always speak only for myself, unless otherwise explicitly stated.

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Thomas Charron <twaffle at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the crux of the complaints against sourceforges TOS ...

  Yes, I read them.  Which is more than most do, I think.  Witness my
objection to "proprietary"; they never claim that.  People like to
parrot statements, though.  So I'm more for discussion than blind
repetition.

> And then, the granting of an entirely new license.  Note the right the
> 'rent and resell':

  Renting and reselling Free Software is not prohibited by any of the
major licenses, as far as I'm aware.  I can't imagine it would be
terribly successful, given that the code is Free to begin with.  So
why put such a statement in there?  I can think of a few reasons:

  (1) Overzealous lawyers who think people will pay for code that's
already Free (libre).  This seems likely doomed to failure.  But it
doesn't make the code non-Free, so it seems rather unessecary to be
worried about it.  If SF Inc can find such suckers, I have trouble
worrying about it.  A fool and his money are my best friends.

  (2) Overzealous lawyers who are worried about having the right to do
what SF.net is overtly doing: Redistributing and republishing content.
 Any work is protected by copyright from the moment of inception.
Without a grant of license by the uploader, SF cannot redistribute
anything.  They can't use mirrors or CDNs to distribute the bandwidth
load.  And since money changes hands in some of those sorts of
transactions, I can see some lawyers being afraid of the implications.

  (3) Perhaps they think they can make money by syndicating the
content that isn't part of the code and thus not part of any FOSS
license, e.g., bug tracking information or mailing lists.  I can't
speak to the efficacy of such a business plan.  But I also don't see
much potential for harm.

  I also don't think SF.net should be expected to run their operation
for free (gratis).  They have to aim to recoup their costs somehow.
Otherwise, they won't be viable in the long term.

  This isn't meant to excuse SF Inc for their TOS, which are confusing
and self-contradictory at best, and quite possibly overreaching by the
standards of many.  But calling it "proprietary" or "non-Free" isn't a
proportionate reaction.

>> ... otherwise running this list might be considered copyright infringement.
>
>  Not in the same ballpark as the sourceforge issue.

  I wasn't aware you were empowered to speak for SourceForge, Inc or GNHLUG.

-- Ben

DISCLAIMER: I always speak only for myself, unless otherwise explicitly stated.