How do you explain free software to a copyright enforcer?

[cjolley]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-2051196,00.html

"If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation, as it is difficult for us to give general advice to businesses over what is/is not permitted."

[GNEP]

Bizarre. I'm pretty sure I went to school with that guy. I mean, there can't be many Gervase Markhams around.

[Tjalfe]

Gervase Markham says that he works for the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting choice and innovation on the internet. Of course, he may just be a banana seller. His blog i

you never know I guess

[Dr Mordrid]

F#%^(*G bureaucrats will be the death of the world

Dr. Mordrid

[Fat Tone]

Isn't the problem here that a third-party is SELLING software that should be free. Maybe that is ok if there is some value-added, such as saving you the trouble of downloading and burning a CD (total cost £1 max?) or perhaps including it in a useful bundle of utilities and apps, but if they aren't making it clear and selling it under a pretence, then that IS surely an issue for trading standards.

/flamebait mode off.

[VJ]

Isn't the problem here that a third-party is SELLING software that should be free. Maybe that is ok if there is some value-added, such as saving you the trouble of downloading and burning a CD (total cost £1 max?) or perhaps including it in a useful bundle of utilities and apps, but if they aren't making it clear and selling it under a pretence, then that IS surely an issue for trading standards.

/flamebait mode off.

I'm wit Fat Tone on this one...

I think the problem is that they are SELLING it. Bear in mind that even on free software there still is a copyright (sometimes you may not distribute it, but must get it from the original site). If the software is free, one usually isn't allowed to sell it; even bundling with other software (or with magazines) can be limited.

I don't see what their problem is: if copying Mozilla software isn't an offence, the should be no repercussions for doing so.


Jörg

[cjolley]

I wrote back, politely explaining the principles of copyleft – that the software was free, both as in speech and as in price, and that people copying and redistributing it was a feature, not a bug. I said that selling verbatim copies of Firefox on physical media was absolutely fine with us, and we would like her to return any confiscated CDs and allow us to continue with our plan for world domination (or words to that effect).

The whole point of the thing was that this regulator had no idea how to handle copyrighted software that was truely free.
I just didn't fit into any of her pre conceved slots.

[Wombat]

No, that's not the problem. The MPL license allows you to sell Mozilla, just like this man was doing.

[cjolley]

No, that's not the problem. The MPL license allows you to sell Mozilla, just like this man was doing.

That's what I meant.
Free in the "do with it as you will" sense.

[TnT]

GPL, MPL and the like have nothing against selling of the software as long as access is provided to the source. You can charge for access to the source as well.

My buddy used to sell copies of Red Hat Linux on eBay for a couple bucks per CD, but that was when everyone was on 56K modem or less and downloading ISOs was a pain.

[Wombat]

GPL, MPL and the like have nothing against selling of the software as long as access is provided to the source. You can charge for access to the source as well.

I don't know much about the MPL, but you cannot charge for access to GPL source if someone has the binary. Well, supposedly you can charge a couple bucks for the media or such.

[Marshmallowman]

There is the selling "support for the software" bundled with the free software thingy