A small followup

Lots of the thinking about FOSS comes with a US bias, in particular a
US legal system bias.  

An example from France recently

https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/15/french-judge-rules-gpl-license-to-be-inapplicable-in-french-copyright-court/

I was going to summarise it but then realised that I would basically
have to re-type the article.  If you are interested in how these US
concepts transfer into other legal systems it is an interesting read.

If this is uninteresting do not click the link.

cheers

bruce

On 2022-12-26T11:08:41.000+01:00, Bruce O'Neel
<bruce.oneel at pckswarms.ch> wrote:

> HI,
> 
> While not a detailed discussion of FOSS licensing, there are lots of
> interesting bits in this Strange Loop 2022 talk.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9IqwIovdiA&list=PLcGKfGEEONaDO2dvGEdodnqG5cSnZ96W1&index=16
> 
> "REMEMBER WHEN WE BROKE THE INTERNET?" BY JULIA FERRAIOLI AND AMANDA
> CASARI (STRANGE LOOP 2022)
> 
> Lots of places have dual licensing arrangements where the OSI
> version is free, but if you want or need support or extra (nice)
> features you pay.
> 
> https://posit.co (RStudio renamed themselves, Never a good sign.)
> 
> Labkey with a .org for the free version and a .com for the not free
> version.
> 
> If what you want is just to let people use your code freely then 
> 
> CC BY-NC-ND 4.0CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
> 
> Name: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License
> Abbrev: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
> FSF: non_free (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC-BY-NC)
> URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
> FOSS: no
> Extensible: yes
> Restricts_use: yes
> 
> might cover what you want.
> 
> More, way way more examples, on the R Licensing page.
> 
> https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/share/licenses/license.db
> 
> Another example is 
> 
> https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7687/what-non-commercial-license-is-that
> 
> which is a somewhat typical license that comes out of an European
> University.
> 
> This is a very deep subject that burns infinite time.
>  Non-commercial is a bit vague.  I work for a big company but we
> do basic research.  Is that commercial?  Or no?  *I* have taken
> the position that it is commercial, but, others do not.
> 
> cheers
> 
> bruce
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> On 2022-12-26T10:09:31.000+01:00, rabbit <rabbit at callistohouse.org>
> wrote:
> 
>>  Thank you. Yes, indeed. That’s fine, a non-free license that
>>  allows free-use under conditions is fine. Do you know of such a
>>  license? 🐰
>>  
>>  •••
>>  𝙄𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜
>>  𝙖 𝙋𝙤𝙧𝙨𝙘𝙝𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙠
>>  𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙛𝙤𝙧 
>>  𝙢𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧, 𝙨𝙤
>>  𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙄 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙
>>  𝙨𝙖𝙛𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙨! 
>>  _ARRIVEDERCI, RABBIT • D_𝙖𝙩𝙨𝙪𝙣 𝟮𝟰𝟬𝙕
>>  • 🐰
>>  
>>>   On Dec 26, 2022, at 04:01, David O'Toole
>>>   <deeteeoh1138 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  
>>  -------------------------
>>  
>>>   
>>>   I think the Free Software definition requires that the user have
>>>   the freedom to use the software for any purpose, including
>>>   commercial. I am not a lawyer, but I have understood this to
>>>   imply that restricting commercial use would make the license a
>>>   non-Free one.
>>>   
>>>   On Sun, Dec 25, 2022 at 11:31 PM rabbit
>>>   <rabbit at callistohouse.org> wrote:
>>>   
>>>>    I am unfamiliar with FOSS licensing. Does anyone know about an
>>>>    open source license that allows free use for free software,
>>>>    but requires payment if its uses are for commercial software?
>>>>    
>>>>    •••
>>>>    𝙄𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙧𝙚
>>>>    𝙙𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖
>>>>    𝙋𝙤𝙧𝙨𝙘𝙝𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙠
>>>>    𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙛𝙤𝙧 
>>>>    𝙢𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧, 𝙨𝙤
>>>>    𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙄 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙
>>>>    𝙨𝙖𝙛𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙨! 
>>>>    _ARRIVEDERCI, RABBIT •
>>>>    D_𝙖𝙩𝙨𝙪𝙣 𝟮𝟰𝟬𝙕 • 🐰

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20221226/6fd6a639/attachment.html>