Brian Kelsay >>> djgoku 08/20/04 09:19AM >>> >> Are you suggesting that the GPL, BSD, Mozilla, Artistic, and other open >> source licenses be altered in some way that requires this? Most of them >> don't make any distinction between "home" and "business" use. >If there is no distinction then it can be used for commercial or home, >as long as the license is respect for the program. correct? >-- >dj_goku Correct. He was just postulating that software for the home should be free no matter what. It is very difficult, however to make this distinction. I do occasional consulting work at home. Many people start up businesses from their home. So do they pay for the licenses as soon as they start a business? Or do they get to keep their software as is? There is some shareware and commercial ware that is free for home-use or non-profit use, but businesses must pay. They rely on the honesty of the user to pay the license. If you create software, you can use whatever license you want, that's up to the developer and/or the company they work for. Sometimes I need a piece of software to solve a problem very quickly. Do I choose to use commercial software that the company or I must pay for, to use once for ten minutes, or do I look for an GPL or similar license solution to avoid going thru the purchasing dept.? I think you know the answer. Going thru purchasing for a $10 or $30 program is a pain in the ass. Getting people to sign purchase orders and the other annoying paperwork is a PITA. But if I pay for something I am committed to using it for at least a year, even if I later decide that it sucks. Some software is developed while working under a grant from the government, e.g. in universities, or government funded projects. Don't you and I as citizens already own that software? I think we could consider it already bought and paid for. I expect that software to be made open source unless it poses a nat'l security risk. I also think that same software should be used everywhere it is suited to, to take full advantage of the dollars spent on development. Now the company that programmed for the government is not required to support any users that decide to adopt this software after it is made open unless this is covered by their development contract. They only should have to provide access to source. They really only have to provide source to the government and the government could handle redistribution. But this is just me talking here. I try to make sense.