rms re simputer license

[Graham Seaman <graham@seul.org>]

rms sent this to the simputer list (http://www.simputer.org)
about their license. I don't think I agree. What do people think?

Graham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: David.Mentre@inria.fr
Subject: Could you forward my message?
Reply-to: rms@gnu.org
Lines: 25
Xref: pochi.inria.fr misc:4685
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

[I cannot send this message to simputer@yahoogroups.com.
Would you like to forward it for me?]

David.Mentre wrote:

     (a) You should have not named the license SGPL. The GPL term is fake in
	 my opinion (see my previous remarks on this list: like the
	 obligation to pay a fee to use commercially the specs). You should
	 have called it Simputer Hardware License or something like that. By
	 the way, what is the position of RMS on that point?

That is what I told them.

I do not say that the Simputer license is wrong or bad.
It would be wrong if it were used for software,
but the ethical issues for hardware are different, and
therefore I do not criticize the Simputer project for
using these license terms.  I don't say that all hardware
designs should be free.

But this hardware design is not free, so it should not be
called free; they should make it clear that this license
is not like the GNU GPL in spirit.



--=-=-=