The description of the license on the main page is inconsistent with the
license itself.
The page states that naxsi is "OpenSource and free to use for your company or
personal own use (ie: as long as you don't resell a service or product based on
Naxsi to customers)."
The freedom to sell is an important part of Free (as in freedom) Software. In
fact, the Free Software Foundation (the authors of the GPL) specifically
encourages people to charge "as much as they wish or can", and the GPL itself
states that "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
The Freedom involved in Free Software has nothing to do with price, rather,
it's about what you can do with it (liberty). There is "freeware" that is
distributed under very restrictive terms, and there is commercial software
(like RedHat Enterprise) that costs money, but provides you a great deal of
freedom by providing the source code and using a license that doesn't attempt
to take freedoms away. If you like, you are free to get the software from
another source (such as CentOS), but RedHat is under no obligation to provide
their labor for free.
Instead of preventing you from selling software, free software protects the
right of your customers to modify and redistribute as /they/ see fit, for free,
or for a fee. They are free to buy it as a group, then give it away without
charge, should they so choose.
A good read on the subject: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
As for reselling a service based on naxsi, the GPL is a copyleft license (one
that uses copyright to ensure freedoms, rather than take them away). It is
based upon the concept that copyright prohibits distribution of other people's
work without a license. Because of that, the license can say "when you
distribute this software, you need to provide the source code upon request, and
do so under the GPL" (for example). With a service, the software is never
distributed, so the license does not kick in. In fact, the GPL specifically
states:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered
by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is
not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents
constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by
running the Program)."
In the United States, the Copyright Act contains a section specifically
limiting the rights that copyright holders have. It's found in section 117,
"Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs". Other countries have
similar limitations. This section of the law specifically exempts copies made
"as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program". This means
that once one has legally acquired a piece of software, one does not need
permission to install or run it (despite what some EULAs might try to make you
think or agree to). Because of this, a service based on legitimately acquired
software isn't subject to license restrictions (though it may be possible to
use a contract to impose restrictions as part of a sale).
Original issue reported on code.google.com by Katebe...@gmail.com on 2 Aug 2013 at 12:28
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
Katebe...@gmail.comon 2 Aug 2013 at 12:28