27 Jan
2008
27 Jan
'08
6:41 p.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 10:44 PM, Daniel Schmitt
<myloginislongerthanyours(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 27, 2008 9:59 PM, Marek <mlf.conv(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Show me one example in GPLv2 which would tell me that i can charge for
*a copy*, not for *distributing a copy*(!).
The FSF clearly uses wrong wording (see my FedEx example) because they
are always talking about encouraging *distribution*
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html:
Quote:
"--> Selling <-- Free Software
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you
should not charge *money for distributing copies* of software, or that
you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the
cost.
Actually we encourage people who *redistribute free software* to
charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you,
please read on."
Please note : Selling software != Distributing for charge and there
are *many* ways to sell software (even while not distributing it at
all).
But let's have a look at these statements from the GPL:
"...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a
fee..."
"... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..."
1. Basically "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a
copy..." translates to "You may *only* charge a fee for the physical act of
transferring a copy..." as the GPL doesn't state that you may charge for the
computer program or any other services related to it other than distribution and providing
warranty. Otherwise such statement made by the GPL would be *invalid*.
This interpretation is at odds with the FSF's own interpretation. Check
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney to get it directly
from the gnu's mouth, so to speak.
As for the original topic: under the GPLv2, anyone can build hardware around a piece of
GPLed software as long as they offer to give the full source, including any modifications
they made, to anyone asking for it, at cost.
Nope. If the software represents a substantial part of the hw based
product, you are not charging for distribution of the software, you
are charging for the entire *product * which would be useless without
the software. If there are software *alternatives* that are easily
installable on your hardware and you chose to prefer one of them, then
you're only distributing the sw along with the hw you are selling.
The restrictions desired by the LS crew therefore do require additional terms beyond the
GPL, and the resulting license is not compatible with the GPL. These are undisputed facts.
Undisputed facts? :) Search for "we believe" in ->
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html
The one mildly interesting question is whether this state of affairs makes LS non-free;
reinterpreting a license it doesn't even use is not going to clarify that.
It's free for users to study, modify the code and run the code for
any purpose, to distribute it to others, whether modified or not.
And see the coincidence, these rules apply to LinuxSampler whether
with or without exception.
GPL is not public domain, it's not charity for midsize or big companies.
In general, the GPL enforces third parties to *give back*. If you
can't give back code, you can give back money(the only exception
being, you're encouraged to distribute, for that sake you can earn a
few bucks if you're able to).
Marek
27 Jan
27 Jan
7:37 p.m.
New subject: [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 27, 2008 11:41 PM, Marek <mlf.conv(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Show me one example in GPLv2 which would tell me that
i can charge for
*a copy*, not for *distributing a copy*(!).
The FSF clearly uses wrong wording (see my FedEx example) because they
are always talking about encouraging *distribution*
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html:
Quote:
"--> Selling <-- Free Software
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you
should not charge *money for distributing copies* of software, or that
you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the
cost.
Actually we encourage people who *redistribute free software* to
charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you,
please read on."
Please note : Selling software != Distributing for charge and there
are *many* ways to sell software (even while not distributing it at
all).
If you had taken their advice and "read on", you would have discovered
that they contradict exactly that statement a few paragraphs further
down on the page. To quote:
"The term "selling software" can be confusing too
Strictly speaking, "selling" means trading goods for money.
Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage
it.
However, when people think of "selling software", they usually
imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the
software proprietary rather than free.
So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way
this article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term
"selling software" and choose some other wording instead.
For example, you could say "distributing free software for a
fee"—that is unambiguous."
So much for your wording claims. Additionally, if you want real-world
examples of hardware devices being sold with GPLed software in them,
legally, check http://www.linksys.com/gpl/
Is there anything left to discuss?
Daniel.
8:21 p.m.
New subject: [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 28, 2008 12:37 AM, Daniel Schmitt <pnambic(a)unu.nu> wrote:
On Jan 27, 2008 11:41 PM, Marek
<mlf.conv(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Really? What they are trying to tell you is:
If you take a piece of sw, and offer it to someone else for a fee and
at the same time that someone else is able to get it from someone else
for free legally, what is it that you're doing? I think the best word
for describing it is - distributing? ;)
Hence - unambigious? You're NOT SELLING the software because it's FREE?
Like getting your goods via FedEx or let someone else fetch it for you
so you save a few bucks?
So it doesn't contradict my claim, and in *fact* they contradict
themselves *because* they use the wording "sell copies" *in the FAQ*
and they use it as the name of their selling free software article,
but at the same time they tell you that you'd better use
"distributing free software for a fee" which is "unambiguous."?
So much for your quote.
Additionally, if you want real-world
Show me one example in GPLv2 which would tell me
that i can charge for
*a copy*, not for *distributing a copy*(!).
The FSF clearly uses wrong wording (see my FedEx example) because they
are always talking about encouraging *distribution*
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html:
Quote:
"--> Selling <-- Free Software
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you
should not charge *money for distributing copies* of software, or that
you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the
cost.
Actually we encourage people who *redistribute free software* to
charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you,
please read on."
Please note : Selling software != Distributing for charge and there
are *many* ways to sell software (even while not distributing it at
all).
If you had taken their advice and "read on", you would have discovered
that they contradict exactly that statement a few paragraphs further
down on the page. To quote:
"The term "selling software" can be confusing too
Strictly speaking, "selling" means trading goods for money.
Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage
it.
However, when people think of "selling software", they usually
imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the
software proprietary rather than free.
So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way
this article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term
"selling software" and choose some other wording instead.
For example, you could say "distributing free software for a
fee"—that is unambiguous."
So much for your wording claims. examples of hardware devices being sold with GPLed
software in them,
legally, check http://www.linksys.com/gpl/
1. Who is the copyright holder in their case?
2. Is their code a derived work?
3. Does the software represent a substantial part of the product?
Is there anything left to discuss?
No.
Marek
10:04 p.m.
New subject: [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 28, 2008 1:21 AM, Marek <mlf.conv(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hence - unambigious? You're NOT SELLING the software because it's FREE?
Like getting your goods via FedEx or let someone else fetch it for you
so you save a few bucks?
So it doesn't contradict my claim, and in *fact* they contradict
themselves *because* they use the wording "sell copies" *in the FAQ*
and they use it as the name of their selling free software article,
but at the same time they tell you that you'd better use
"distributing free software for a fee" which is "unambiguous."?
Which part of "selling a copy of a free program is legitimate and we
encourage it" is causing you difficulties? The paragraph I quoted is
trying to guard against exactly your misunderstanding of the
situation.
Additionally, if you want real-world
In most cases, Linus Torvalds and a cast of thousands, i.e. the kernel
team. Also, the busybox people, who are well known for caring about
their license a lot. See their comments on this in the last paragraph
of http://www.busybox.net/license.html ("A Good Example").
examples of hardware devices being sold with
GPLed software in them,
legally, check http://www.linksys.com/gpl/
1. Who is the copyright holder in their case? 2. Is their code a derived work?
It is customized for their hardware, yes.
3. Does the software represent a substantial part of
the product?
By your own earlier example, yes. This is networking equipment -
routers and the like - not general-purpose computers.
Have fun,
Daniel.
11:04 p.m.
New subject: [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 28, 2008 3:04 AM, Daniel Schmitt <pnambic(a)unu.nu> wrote:
It's just their less restrictive interpretation of the GPL to their
disadvantage.
If they call implementing busybox inside a router (or whatever
embedded device) distributing of their own software
then there is nothing i can do about it at the moment.
Well, then they clearly violate the GPL. And it wouldn't hurt Linksys
to pay for a separate license would it?
In order to fuel development of the software components they use in
their products?
Have fun. :)
Marek
On Jan 28, 2008 1:21 AM, Marek
<mlf.conv(a)gmail.com> wrote:
1. there is a difference between the copyright holder and third
parties. For example, the copyright holder is allowed to sell his
software and in some case he doesn't even distribute it by selling it.
2. The FedEx example should demonstrate why the FSF chose
"distributing for fee". Everytime someone restricts others to download
free software in order to charge for it, he makes the software a
little bit less free. (Doesn't matter if you can get it somewhere
else, some people dont even know for example). So in order to keep
your software free from legal point of view, you say that the person
in question is charging for the physical act of transferring a copy
not for the software itself. In fact he is indeed doing so, he takes
the software from someone and offers to someone else for a fee, he
distributes.
Hence - unambigious? You're NOT SELLING the software because it's FREE?
Like getting your goods via FedEx or let someone else fetch it for you
so you save a few bucks?
So it doesn't contradict my claim, and in *fact* they contradict
themselves *because* they use the wording "sell copies" *in the FAQ*
and they use it as the name of their selling free software article,
but at the same time they tell you that you'd better use
"distributing free software for a fee" which is "unambiguous."?
Which part of "selling a copy of a free program is legitimate and we
encourage it" is causing you difficulties? The paragraph I quoted is
trying to guard against exactly your misunderstanding of the
situation.
You haven't provided a single explanation as to why my claims
condratict the FSF claim, other than pasting a paragaph for which i
have already given an explanation.
Which leads me to think that you are not a lawyer and you're just
being arrogant.
Additionally, if you want real-world
In most cases, Linus Torvalds and a cast of thousands, i.e. the kernel
team. Also, the busybox people, who are well known for caring about
their license a lot. See their comments on this in the last paragraph
of http://www.busybox.net/license.html ("A Good Example"). examples of hardware devices being sold with
GPLed software in them,
legally, check http://www.linksys.com/gpl/
1. Who is the copyright holder in their case? 2. Is their code a derived work?
It is customized for their hardware, yes.
3. Does the software represent a substantial part
of the product?
By your own earlier example, yes. This is networking equipment -
routers and the like - not general-purpose computers.
Have fun, 
28 Jan
28 Jan
6:40 a.m.
New subject: [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Hallo,
Marek hat gesagt: // Marek wrote:
2. The FedEx example should demonstrate why the FSF
chose
"distributing for fee". Everytime someone restricts others to download
free software in order to charge for it, he makes the software a
little bit less free. (Doesn't matter if you can get it somewhere
else, some people dont even know for example). So in order to keep
your software free from legal point of view, you say that the person
in question is charging for the physical act of transferring a copy
not for the software itself. In fact he is indeed doing so, he takes
the software from someone and offers to someone else for a fee, he
distributes.
How do you sell software without distributing a copy of it as well? At
least I would never buy something unless I also get something. (And if
I don't get a piece of software, the GPL is not involved anyway. The
police would be, as this could be a fraud.) As the GPL doesn't say a
single word about how the fee for distribution should be calculated,
in fact it is up to the distributor to specify the price. The GPL
doesn't restrict the fee at all.
Example: Say putting something online for download takes me 15
minutes. My time is precious. I charge by the hour. I'm an expert and
guarantee the highest quality. My hourly fee is 60,000 Euro. That
makes 15,000 Euro to prepare the physical act of distributing one
copy. Plus taxes.
(Note that I include downloading software as one way of physically
distributing software, even when no atoms are transferred.
Distribution by download are the norm today, even for non-free,
commercial software. Making a difference between FedEx-distribution
and downloads would be artifical.)
But what the GPL disallows is that a distributor puts any additional
restrictions on third party distributors who bought from him. So I can
buy Linux for a ridiculously high price, but the guy I bought it from
is not allowed to forbid that I put my expensive copy on a website for
free download nor that I sell it there for an even higher price -
remember, my hourly rate is 60,000 Euro.
GPL v3 clarified this interpretation: Whereas in v2 the GPL states:
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy
...", v3 made the implication I mentioned and its intention explicit:
"You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey
...". Note the "any" here.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
10:28 a.m.
New subject: [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 28, 2008 11:40 AM, Frank Barknecht <fbar(a)footils.org> wrote:
Hallo,
Marek hat gesagt: // Marek wrote:
Here's one definition of distribute:To divide among several or many;
to deal out; to
apportion; to allot.
Let' have an example:
If i take ardour, throw out everything GUI related plus a couple of
other things, make some modifications in order to
make it work with a custom front panel with a couple of hardware
buttons, a couple of hardware sliders and a lcd panel in order to
build a 16 track rack based recorder,
and make the sources free, would call this distributing ardour?
2. The FedEx example should demonstrate why the
FSF chose
"distributing for fee". Everytime someone restricts others to download
free software in order to charge for it, he makes the software a
little bit less free. (Doesn't matter if you can get it somewhere
else, some people dont even know for example). So in order to keep
your software free from legal point of view, you say that the person
in question is charging for the physical act of transferring a copy
not for the software itself. In fact he is indeed doing so, he takes
the software from someone and offers to someone else for a fee, he
distributes.
How do you sell software without distributing a copy of it as well? As the GPL doesn't say a
single word about how the fee for distribution should be calculated,
in fact it is up to the distributor to specify the price. The GPL
doesn't restrict the fee at all.
Who said something else?
Marek
noon
New subject: [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Hallo,
Marek hat gesagt: // Marek wrote:
Here's one definition of distribute:To divide
among several or many;
to deal out; to
apportion; to allot.
Let' have an example:
If i take ardour, throw out everything GUI related plus a couple of
other things, make some modifications in order to
make it work with a custom front panel with a couple of hardware
buttons, a couple of hardware sliders and a lcd panel in order to
build a 16 track rack based recorder,
and make the sources free, would call this distributing ardour?
Of course: Then I distribute a modified version of Ardour. As long as
the rest of the GPL is fullfilled (sources available etc.) this is
perfectly fine and covered by the GPL. It doesn't matter that I chose
a very expensive means of distributing Ardour (stored inside of a full
keyboard) and not just a floppy disk: I am still distributing copies
of (a modified) Ardour here.
It has already been said: Tens of thousands of W-LAN routers in the
world do exactly this, and to my knowledge none of the vendors was
ever accused of breaking the GPL because they took money - the were
indicted only because they didn't provide source code as required by
the GPL.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
6091
days inactive
6092
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
7 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Daniel Schmitt -
Frank Barknecht -
Marek