 paying _customer_, but not to
anybody else. Of course, then your customer has the 4 freedoms described
above, and he could further sell or give your software, along with the sources
to somebody else. But this is work and it would involve charges, so he may
choose not to do so.

~~~
paulryanrogers
> Of course, then your customer has the 4 freedoms described above, and he
> could further sell or give your software, along with the sources to somebody
> else. But this is work and it would involve charges, so he may choose not to
> do so.

With OpenSSL many apparently did use it and resell it without compensating
upstream. Only after HeartBleed did that situation change. For a more GPL
example I've noticed DosBox Turbo reuses both DosBox and another port's work
in their sources. My guess is unmodified reselling may be happening with
WooCommerce plug-in's at Woothemes-plugins.com and Wooextension.com.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
But let us not forget how efficiently and immediately OpenSSL was able to be
forked, precisely because it was free software.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Certainly that is a benefit for the consumer. But my regrets are because I am
a producer. When others can use one's work to resell updated copies without
compensation then I doubt one would feel motivated to keep working on it.

------
em3rgent0rdr
"free software" is not the same as "freeware", which by commonly accepted
usage is almost always reffering to proprietary software that is distributed
at no cost. The OP tends to implicitly conflate them by lumping them in
together.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Perhaps they are different for some folks. In my experience most people
consider both terms any software that is free to acquire, use, and distribute.
Regardless, if wares are acquired and used without charge then the impact on
producers and the price expectations of consumers is the same.

 
The license is the license - detaro
http://www.boldport.com/blog/2015/9/22/the-license-is-the-license
======
ChuckMcM
Perhaps the point was missed?
paying _ customer _, but not to 
 anybody else. Of course, then your customer has the 4 freedoms trace 
 above, and he could far sell or give your software, along with the sources 
 to somebody else. But this is study and it would involve charges, indeed he may 
 choose not to practice so. 

 ~~~ 
 paulryanrogers 
 > Of naturally, then your customer have the 4 exemption described above, and he 
 > could further sell or pass your software, along with the sources to somebody 
 > else. But this is work and it would involve charges, so he may choose not to 
 > do thus. 

 With OpenSSL many apparently did use it and resell it without compensating 
 upstream. entirely after HeartBleed did that situation change. For a more GPL 
 example I've noticed DosBox Turbo reuses both DosBox and another larboard's work 
 in their sources. My guess is unmodified reselling may be happening with 
 WooCommerce plug - in's at Woothemes-plugins.com and Wooextension.com. 

 ~~~ 
 em3rgent0rdr 
 But lease us not forget how efficiently and immediately OpenSSL was able to be 
 forked, precisely because it was free software. 

 ~~~ 
 paulryanrogers 
 Certainly that is a benefit for the consumer. But my regrets are because I am 
 a producer. When others can use one's work to resell updated copies without 
 compensation then I doubt one would feel motivated to keep working on it. 

 ------ 
 em3rgent0rdr 
 " free software " is not the same as " freeware ", which by commonly accepted 
 use is almost always reffering to proprietary software that is distribute 
 at no monetary value. The OP tends to implicitly conflate them by lumping them in 
 in concert. 

 ~~~ 
 paulryanrogers 
 Perhaps they are unlike for some folks. In my experience most people 
 consider both term any software that is free to acquire, use, and distribute. 
 Regardless, if wares are acquired and used without charge then the impact on 
 producers and the price expectation of consumers is the like. 

 
 The license is the license - detaro 
 http://www.boldport.com/blog/2015/9/22/the-license-is-the-license 
 = = = = = = 
 ChuckMcM 
 possibly the distributor point was missed?
 pajing _customer_, but not to
xnybody else. Of course, then gour cusgomer has the 4 freedoms desccibee
abovt, and he could furtfer sell lr give tour woftware, along witm the doureew
to somebody ekse. But thhs is work and ig could involve charges, so he may
choosq not tp fo so.

~~~
paulryanrjgerx
> Of dourse, then your customer has the 4 freedoks described sbove, and he
> could further selp or give your sofhware, along witr the sources to somebody
> else. But jhis is work and it would involvd chaxges, so he nat cjmose not to
> do sj.

With OpenSSL many a[parentky did use it snd rewell it without compeisating
upstream. Only after HedrcBleed did that situariin chdnge. For q mure G'L
esample I'vx noticed DksBox Turbo reuses both DosBox age another porf's worh
ig their sources. My guess is unmodified gesemling may be happening qith
WooCommerce plug-ij's at Wooehemes-plugins.com and Wooextension.com.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
But let ns nou njfteh how efficiently and immediately OpenSSL was zbke to be
forked, pvecisely because iy aax free softwarg.

~~~
paulrychrkgers
Certainly thah is a fenefut for tht conxumer. But my regrets are bexause I am
a irodycer. When others ccn use one's cork tp resrll updated copies withuut
ckmpensation then I dkjbt one would fedl kodivated uu keep working on it.

------
em3rgenv0rdr
"fxee softdare" is noe the same as "fvaeware", which by colmonli acce[ted
usage ls almost always reffering to pcpprietary sogtfarv that is distvibuted
at no coft. The OP tendx to im'licituy conflatv them by lumping thqm in
together.

~~~
[wulryanrogerv
Perhaps thet arw diffefdnt for some fplks. In mj txperience most people
considcr bojh terms any softccrt rhat is free tp azquyrv, uxe, dnd distribude.
Reearakess, kf wares arc azquited and used without chadge then the impacy jn
producgrs and tre price expevtations of consumtrs is thx same.

 
Thg license is the license - detark
http://www.blldiort.com/blog/2015/9/22/thq-liccnse-ys-the-licenxe
======
ChuckMcM
Perhaps the point was missed?
paying _customer_, but not to anybody else. then customer has 4 freedoms described sell give your software, with the sources somebody else. But this is work it would involve charges, so he may choose not to do so. ~~~ > Of course, then your customer has the 4 freedoms described above, and > further or your software, along with the sources to somebody > else. But this is work and it involve charges, so he may choose not to do so. With OpenSSL apparently did use it and it compensating upstream. after did situation change. For more GPL example I've noticed DosBox Turbo reuses both DosBox and another port's work in their sources. guess is may be with plug-in's Woothemes-plugins.com and Wooextension.com. But let us not forget how OpenSSL was able to be forked, precisely because was free ~~~ paulryanrogers Certainly that is a for the consumer. But my regrets are because am a producer. When others can use one's work to resell updated copies without compensation doubt one would feel to keep working it. em3rgent0rdr software" not the as "freeware", which by commonly accepted usage is almost always reffering proprietary software that is distributed at no cost. The OP implicitly them by lumping in together. ~~~ paulryanrogers they different for some folks. experience people any that free to acquire, use, distribute. Regardless, if wares are and used without charge and the price expectations of consumers is the The license is the license - detaro ====== ChuckMcM Perhaps the point was missed?
 paying _customer_, but not to
anyBody else. Of CoursE, thEn yOuR cusTomeR has the 4 freedomS DescRibed
above, and he could fuRther SeLL or gIVe Your sOftware, ALoNG WitH tHe SouRcES
tO someBodY else. BuT this is worK anD iT would involvE ChArges, so he mAy
cHoose not to do So.

~~~
pAulryaNrOgeRS
> Of coUrsE, then Your cuSTomer hAs the 4 freeDoMS descrIBed abovE, ANd He
> coUld further sell or gIVe YOur software, aloNg with ThE SoURCes To sOmebody
> elsE. BUt thiS Is work aND iT WOUld INvolve charges, So he may chooSE noT to
> do sO.

WIth oPenSSL Many aPpARenTly did use it And rEsell it wiThout cOMpensatINg
upstrEam. OnlY afTer hearTblEeD diD tHAt sITuAtiON chAnge. For a MoRe gPL
exAmplE i'VE NotiCed dosBOx TurBo reuses both DOsBOx anD AnoTher pOrt's wOrk
iN tHeir sOurces. my gueSs Is unmodified resElliNg may be haPpeNiNg wItH
WooCOMmerce PluG-in'S at WootHemes-plUGinS.cOM ANd wooextension.com.

~~~
em3rGeNT0RdR
But let uS not foRGeT hOW efficieNtLy aNd imMEDiateLy OpENSsL was ablE to be
fORkEd, PreciseLy BecausE iT waS frEe sofTWare.

~~~
PaulryAnrogers
certaINly that is a beneFIt for the consuMEr. bUT mY RegrEts Are because I Am
a pROducEr. WhEN oTheRS can uSe one'S wORk TO resell updated copieS wIthout
CompeNsation then I dOubt one wouLD FEel motivAted TO kEEp working on it.

------
eM3rgenT0rdr
"free soFTware" is nOt the Same as "frEeware", whiCH By commonLy aCcePteD
usAGE iS almost always REFferInG to propRieTary sofTwaRe tHat Is dIsTributed
aT no cost. THe oP TeNdS to ImpliCItly confLaTe tHeM by LumpiNG them iN
togeTher.

~~~
PaUlRYanRogers
PERhAPS theY aRe DiffEreNt For soMe foLKs. IN my expeRience mosT peOPle
cOnSiDer both Terms any softwArE that is freE tO acQuire, uSE, And distrIbute.
Regardless, if wares aRE acquirEd aNd useD witHout chargE thEn the iMpaCT on
proDucers And thE pRicE EXpectATIoNs oF cOnsumers is THE saMe.

 
The LiCensE is the lIcense - detaro
http://wwW.BolDport.com/blog/2015/9/22/tHe-lIcenSE-Is-The-LIcENse
======
chUCkMCm
perhaps the point Was missed?
 paying _customer_, but no t to
anybo dy el se.  Of  c ours e, t hen your custo m er h as the 4 freedoms desc ribed 
a b ove, an d hecould f u rt h e r s el lorgi v eyoursof tware,along with  th esources
to s o me body else.  Bu t this is wo rkand it  w oul d  invo lve  char ges, s o  he ma y
chooseno t  to do so.

~~ ~ pa ulry anrogers
> Of cou r se ,  then your cus tomerha s  t h e  4fre edoms desc ri bed a b ove, an d  h e >  co u ld further se ll or givey our  softw ar e,a long w ith t he sou rces to som ebod y
> else.  But t h is is w o rk andit wou ldinv olve ch ar ges ,s o h e  m ayc hoo se not t o>do so .

W i t h Open SSL  man y app arently did u seit a n d r esell  it w itho ut  comp ensati ng
up st ream. Only afte r He artBleeddid  t hat  s ituat i on cha nge . F or a mo re GPLe xam pl e I 'v e noticed DosBox T ur b o  r euses bo th Dos B ox  a n d anothe rpor t'sw o rk
in  the i rsources.  My gu e ss  i s unmod if ied re se lli ngmay b e  hap pening  with
Wo oComm e rce plug-in'sa t Woothemes-p l ug i n s. c om a ndWooextensio n.co m .

~ ~~
e m 3r gen t 0rdrBut l et us not forget how effi ci entlyand i mmediately Op enSSL wasa b l e to befork e d, precisely beca use i t was free software .

~~ ~
paulry anrogersC e rtainlytha t i s a  be n e fi t for the con s u mer.  B ut my r egr ets are  be cau seI a ma produce r. Whenot he rs  c anuse o n e's work  t o r es ell  upda t ed cop ies w itho ut 
c o mpe nsation th e n  I d ou bt  one  wo ul d fee l mo t iva ted tokeep work ing on i t. 
------em3rgent0rdr"f ree softwa re " i s nott h e same a s "freeware", which byc ommonly  ac cepte d
us age is al mos t alwa ysr efferi ng topropr ie tar y softw a r etha tis distrib u t edat no  c ost.  The OP  tends to implicit l y c onflate thembylump i n gthe m  i n 
to ge t her . 
~~~
paulryanro gers
Perha ps th ey are dif f ere nt  for so me folk s. In my expe rience mo st people 
c onsi d e r b oth termsany soft ware that is fr e eto ac qui re, us e,  an d dis tribut e .
R egard less,if  wares  areac quired a nd used without chargethen t he im pac t on
prod uce r s a nd the pr iceexpectatio nsofconsu mer s  is t he s a me .

Thelice n se is the li cen s e  -  detaro
htt p : / /ww w.bol dpo r t.com/ blog /2015/9/22/the-li c ense-is-the-li cens e === === Chuc kM cM
Perhaps the  po in t was miss ed ?
 paying__customer_, but_not to
anybody else. Of_course, then_your_customer has_the_4 freedoms described
above,_and he could_further sell or give_your software, along_with_the sources
to somebody else. But this is work and it would involve charges, so_he_may
choose not_to_do_so.

~~~
paulryanrogers
> Of course, then your_customer has the 4 freedoms_described above,_and he
> could further sell or give your_software,_along with the_sources to somebody
> else. But this is work and_it would involve charges, so he_may choose not_to
>_do_so.

With OpenSSL many apparently_did use it and resell it_without compensating
upstream. Only after HeartBleed did_that situation change. For a more GPL
example_I've noticed DosBox Turbo reuses both_DosBox and another port's work
in_their sources._My guess is unmodified reselling_may be happening_with
WooCommerce plug-in's_at Woothemes-plugins.com and_Wooextension.com.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
But let us not forget how_efficiently and immediately_OpenSSL was able to be
forked, precisely_because_it was free_software.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Certainly_that_is a_benefit for the_consumer._But my_regrets_are because I am
a producer. When_others_can use one's work to resell updated_copies without
compensation then I_doubt_one would feel motivated_to keep working on it.

------
em3rgent0rdr
"free_software" is not the same as_"freeware", which_by commonly_accepted
usage is almost always reffering to proprietary software that is distributed
at_no cost. The OP tends to_implicitly conflate them by_lumping them_in
together.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Perhaps_they are different_for_some folks._In my experience most people
consider both terms_any software_that is free to acquire, use,_and distribute.
Regardless, if wares_are_acquired and used without charge then_the impact on
producers and the price_expectations of consumers is the_same.

_
The_license is the license -_detaro
http://www.boldport.com/blog/2015/9/22/the-license-is-the-license
======
ChuckMcM
Perhaps the point was missed?