26 Jan
2008
26 Jan
'08
8:02 p.m.
Hi,
I'd like to clarify a few questions regarding GPL and LinuxSampler.
The GPL implicitly prohibits third parties from selling a computer program
licensed under the terms of GPL, by only allowing the following, quoting
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..."
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in
part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this License."
Basically:
1. selling a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL and
2. charging a fee for distribution of a computer program licensed under the
terms of GPL / charging for a physical act of transferring a copy
are 2 entirely different things.
When you sell a computer program you are charging for the costs(human
resources - developers, designers; technical resources - computers etc) you
have put into *developing a computer program* plus you are charging an
adittional fee based on your estimation of value that your product would
have on the market(offer/demand stuff)
When you distribute a computer program or charge a fee for physical act of
transferring a copy you are charging for the costs you have put into
*distribution of a computer program* plus you are charging an additional fee
based on your estimation of value that your *distribution service* would
have on the market.
This means that:
1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware
product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer
program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL.
2. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, whether
modified or not, in a software product, the intention of which is not to
distribute a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, is not a
distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is
thus prohibited by GPL.
No.1 of course has an exception, you would have to sell a computer that has
a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL installed on it as a part
of distribution, for the purpose of selling the computer(for example with
preinstalled Linux distribution)
No.2 has several scenarios:
a) a distribution is an obvious case where a given computer program licensed
under the terms of GPL is a part of a bigger software product, the sole
purpose of which is to distribute, thus a distribution is fully GPL
compliant whether made available for transfer at no charge, or selled as a
package in stores.
b) a scenario where computer program must not be modified in order to become
part of another comuter program "...thus forming a work based on the
Program..." This means that if a computer program as a whole, whether
modified or not, becomes part of another computer program at *source-code*
level, then the terms of GPL apply to such derived work.
You can derive a work from another at source code level(by modifying the
original, by adding code to it while not modifying the original, or both)
but you can also derive a work at binary level. And if fact, the GPL doesn't
differentiate between source-code and binary level derived works:
"...any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part
contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof..."
So suppose a software developer goes on developing a cool GUI for a computer
program licensed under the terms of GPL which he intends to sell.
The GUI talks to the GPLed computer program via some kind of IPC.
He can claim that he's charging for his own program and distributing the
GPLed computer program along with it, since the two are in fact 2 separate
applications that communicate through IPC.
This might be true, but consider the following - the GPLed computer program
is capable of functioning as a standalone application, whereas the GUI
application is practically useless without the GPLed computer program, ans
is thus a derived work at *binary-level*.
The GPL states, that "...in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
Program...", which means, whether at source code level or binary level.
This has the following consequences:
A proprietary computer program that is not capable of functioning as a
standalone computer program, and is communicating with a computer program
licensed under the terms of GPL, in order to ensure its purpose and proper
functioning, is a derived work under the terms of GPL, thus the terms of GPL
apply to such work, and a software developer of such proprietary computer
program is *also* violating the terms of GPL by not distributing the
computer program licensed under the terms of GPL for the sole purpose of
distributing it.
So to summarize that with respect to LinuxSampler, the exception
"LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of
the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED" is in fact no exception at all, and is
already covered by GPL.
If someone finds such interpretation too vague for his own taste, he can
simply make an amendment to the GPL license, stating that you can only
charge for distribution of Program for the sole purpose of distributing it,
but not for the actual Program, which would basically equal to the above
mentioned exception.
Also note that this only applies to *third parties*, not the actual
copyright holder. He can issue another license if someone finds GPL too
restrictive for his needs, and charge for it.
So LinuxSampler is basically a pure GPLed computer program.
Marek
27 Jan
27 Jan
12:50 a.m.
On 27/01/2008, Mlf Conv <mlf.conv(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So LinuxSampler is basically a pure GPLed computer program.
Marek
i'm not trying to add fuel to the fire or anything, but if this is the
case,
and the gpl protects against the sort of thing they are worried about
anyway, why go through all the hassle of adding the clause that has
obviously (whether deserved or not) caused so much controversy? wouldn't it
be better to simply have a faq item stating that the gpl prohibits this
behaviour anyway?
i hope this comes across right without upsetting anyone, as it is obviously
a delicate topic, and i am just trying to understand it better myself, not
cause more issues :)
porl
9:34 a.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 5:50 AM, porl sheean <porl42(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 27/01/2008, Mlf Conv <mlf.conv(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Yes, that's what i was suggesting, when i talked to Christian last time. Or
making an amendment to GPL which is fully GPL compatible if it feels to
vague.
Marek
So LinuxSampler is basically a pure GPLed computer program.
Marek
i'm not trying to add fuel to the fire or anything, but if this is the
case,
and the gpl protects against the sort of thing they are worried about
anyway, why go through all the hassle of adding the clause that has
obviously (whether deserved or not) caused so much controversy? wouldn't it
be better to simply have a faq item stating that the gpl prohibits this
behaviour anyway?
i hope this comes across right without upsetting anyone, as it is
obviously a delicate topic, and i am just trying to understand it better
myself, not cause more issues :)
porl
5:53 a.m.
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 01:02 +0100, Mlf Conv wrote:
This means that:
1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a
hardware product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a
computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus
prohibited by GPL.
I don't follow on this one. I was under the impression that it's
perfectly ok to include GPL software in hardware, but that the sources
must be provided.
2. usage of a computer program licensed under the
terms of GPL,
whether modified or not, in a software product, the intention of which
is not to distribute a computer program licensed under the terms of
GPL, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the
terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL.
Huh?
So to summarize that with respect to LinuxSampler, the
exception
"LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that
USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL
HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED" is in fact no exception
at all, and is already covered by GPL.
We have been told that the LS team talked to the FSF people. If things
would be so easy, I'm sure it would have been resolved already.
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
7:09 a.m.
Am Sonntag, 27. Januar 2008 09:52:35 schrieb Thorsten Wilms:
Exactly. We don't have any sadomasochistic tendencies, so we're not keeping
this restriction and all the flamewars for fun. I would appreciate if your
claim would be true Marek, but it seems the FSF does not share your
interpretation of the GPL. And if the author of the license doesn't ... you
know ... who would?
And IMO this is the wrong place to discuss this issue anyway. I'm sure the FSF
can give you better answers than anybody here.
CU
Christian
So to
summarize that with respect to LinuxSampler, the exception
"LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that
USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL
HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED" is in fact no exception
at all, and is already covered by GPL.
We have been told that the LS team talked to the FSF people. If things
would be so easy, I'm sure it would have been resolved already.
9:29 a.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 1:11 PM, Christian Schoenebeck <cuse(a)users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
Am Sonntag, 27. Januar 2008 09:52:35 schrieb Thorsten
Wilms:
Exactly. We don't have any sadomasochistic tendencies, so we're not
keeping
this restriction and all the flamewars for fun. I would appreciate if your
claim would be true Marek, but it seems the FSF does not share your
interpretation of the GPL. And if the author of the license doesn't ...
you
know ... who would?
Can you paste information that would confirm your claim that "The FSF
doesn't share my interpretation of the GPL"? I'd be very interested to read
it.
Note the the GPL is an extremely restrictive license(to the advantage of the
copyright holder), and numerous articles have been published, and numerous
statements from various companies have been issued regarding this very
issue.
For example have a look at the intepretation which you can find directly
below the terms of GPL: This General Public License does not permit
incorporating your program into proprietary programs.
Marek
So to
summarize that with respect to LinuxSampler, the exception
"LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that
USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL
HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED" is in fact no exception
at all, and is already covered by GPL.
We have been told that the LS team talked to the FSF people. If things
would be so easy, I'm sure it would have been resolved already. 
1:10 p.m.
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Marek wrote:
Note the the GPL is an extremely restrictive
license(to the advantage of the
copyright holder), and numerous articles have been published, and numerous
statements from various companies have been issued regarding this very issue.
This is FUD, plain and simple. What, do you work for Wasabi [1][2], or
something?
For example have a look at the intepretation which you
can find directly below
the terms of GPL: This General Public License does not permit incorporating
your program into proprietary programs.
...a clause which is totally unrelated to your original point, which it lends no
credibility.
[1] http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS5986704127.html
[2] http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8887868210.html
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
3:14 p.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 6:10 PM, Forest Bond <forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
It's totally related, you should read the original mail again.
Marek
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Marek wrote:
FUD for who? For those who make profit out of work of others? Are you also
making money out of work of others?
If so then this is FUD for you indeed. If you are a copyright holder then
you should know how the GPL protects your work.
Note the the GPL is an extremely restrictive
license(to the advantage of
the
copyright holder), and numerous articles have
been published, and
numerous
statements from various companies have been
issued regarding this very
issue.
This is FUD, plain and simple. What, do you work for Wasabi [1][2], or
something? For example have a look at the intepretation
which you can find directly
below
the terms of GPL: This General Public License
does not permit
incorporating
your program into proprietary programs.
...a clause which is totally unrelated to your original point, which it
lends no
credibility.
4:40 p.m.
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek wrote:
On Jan 27, 2008 6:10 PM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Marek wrote:
>> Note the the GPL is an extremely restrictive license(to the advantage of the
>> copyright holder), and numerous articles have been published, and numerous
>> statements from various companies have been issued regarding this very
>> issue.
>This is FUD, plain and simple. What, do you work
for Wasabi [1][2], or
>something?
FUD for who? For those who make profit out of work of
others?
According to the FSF:
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four
kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
...
Profit is one such purpose, and I believe that Stallman himself would defend it
vigorously.
Are you also making money out of work of others?
Who isn't? All work is based on the work of others.
If so then this is FUD for you indeed. If you are a
copyright holder then you
should know how the GPL protects your work.
Agreed. But your interpretation of the GPL is one that I've certainly never
seen.
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
5:23 p.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 9:40 PM, Forest Bond <forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
I'm talking about taking advantage of others work with little effort and
without giving back.
You have seen it now :)
Marek
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek wrote:
Again, the freedom to RUN the program for any purpose.
Suppose i'm a musician, and i am making a living with music, every night i
play piano at the "xyz piano bar", i'm using LinuxSampler on my laptop and
a
masterkeyboard. Which means i'm *running* LinuxSampler for the purpose of
making profit with it.
On Jan 27, 2008 6:10 PM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Marek wrote:
>> Note the the GPL is an extremely restrictive license(to the advantage
of
the
>> copyright holder), and numerous articles
have been published, and
numerous
>> statements from various companies have
been issued regarding this
very
>> issue.
>This is FUD, plain and simple. What, do you
work for Wasabi [1][2], or
>something?
FUD for who? For those who make profit out of
work of others?
According to the FSF:
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four
kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
...
Profit is one such purpose, and I believe that Stallman himself would
defend it
vigorously. Are you also making money out of work of others?
Who isn't? All work is based on the work of others. If so then this is FUD for you indeed. If you are
a copyright holder
then you
should know how the GPL protects your work.
Agreed. But your interpretation of the GPL is one that I've certainly
never
seen.
5:56 p.m.
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 10:23:21PM +0100, Marek wrote:
On Jan 27, 2008 9:40 PM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek wrote:
>> If so then this is FUD for you indeed. If you are a copyright holder then
>> you should know how the GPL protects your work.
> Agreed. But your interpretation of the GPL is one
that I've certainly never
> seen.
You have seen it now :)
Well, your interpretation differs greatly from that of the FSF (as well as the
vast majority of the GPL camp). I wish you luck evangelizing it.
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
6:49 p.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 10:56 PM, Forest Bond <forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 10:23:21PM +0100, Marek wrote:
Define vast majority of the GPL camp. Give me the facts, give me the links.
Marek
On Jan 27, 2008 9:40 PM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek wrote:
>> If so then this is FUD for you indeed. If you are a copyright holder then
>> you should know how the GPL protects your work.
> Agreed. But your interpretation of the GPL
is one that I've certainly never
> seen.
You have seen it now :)
Well, your interpretation differs greatly from that of the FSF (as well as the
vast majority of the GPL camp). I wish you luck evangelizing it.
7:07 p.m.
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:49:48PM +0100, Marek wrote:
On Jan 27, 2008 10:56 PM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
> Well, your interpretation differs greatly from that of the FSF (as well as
> the vast majority of the GPL camp). I wish you luck evangelizing it.
Define vast majority of the GPL camp. Give me the
facts, give me the links.
My statement was based on the assumption that "the vast majority of the GPL
camp" tends to agree with the FSF when interpreting the GPL.
The FSF's position is clearly stated here:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
I don't see how this conversation can really go much further. You disagree with
the FSF as to how the GPL should be interpreted. I don't see why your views on
this should be held in higher regard than the FSF's.
Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work? What is your interest in this?
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
7:19 p.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond <forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:49:48PM +0100, Marek wrote:
The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about this. They talk
about charging for distribution of sw.
On Jan 27, 2008 10:56 PM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
> Well, your interpretation differs greatly from that of the FSF (as well as
> the vast majority of the GPL camp). I wish you luck evangelizing it.
Define vast majority of the GPL camp. Give me the
facts, give me the links.
My statement was based on the assumption that "the vast majority of the GPL
camp" tends to agree with the FSF when interpreting the GPL.
The FSF's position is clearly stated here:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work? What is your interest in this?
No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use and appropriate
compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or
money, for the original copyright holders.
Marek
7:51 p.m.
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:19:22AM +0100, Marek wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
> The FSF's position is clearly stated here:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about
this. They talk
about charging for distribution of sw.
True, but given that most commercial distributors do not deliver an invoice with
separate line items for software and distribution, the practical distinction
appears to be nil. I suspect this is intentional, especially given the FSF's
repeated use "bad wording" that is consistent with this implication.
> Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work?
What is your interest in
> this?
No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use and
appropriate
compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or
money, for the original copyright holders.
You are interested in increasing both users' and developers' respective rights?
That sounds difficult.
Moreover, your goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free
software developers to you currently represent? Is your practice based in the
US, Europe, or elsewhere?
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
7:57 p.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 12:51 AM, Forest Bond <forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this?
Marek
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:19:22AM +0100, Marek wrote:
?
On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
> The FSF's position is clearly stated here:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about
this. They talk
about charging for distribution of sw.
True, but given that most commercial distributors do not deliver an invoice with
separate line items for software and distribution, the practical distinction
appears to be nil. I suspect this is intentional, especially given the
FSF's
repeated use "bad wording" that is consistent with this implication.
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
> Have you ever applied the GPL to your own
work? What is your interest in
> this?
No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use
and appropriate
compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or
money, for the original copyright holders.
You are interested in increasing both users' and developers' respective rights?
That sounds difficult.
Moreover, your goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free
software developers to you currently represent? 
8:27 p.m.
Moreover, your
goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free
software developers to you currently represent?
What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this? Moreover, your
goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free
software developers to you currently represent?
What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this?
8:47 p.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 1:27 AM, Dennis Schulmeister
<linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de> wrote:
I understand that you're doing this not for a certain client but for
free software developers and users in general. That's good.
The question about your location seems valid though. Because as you have
noticed most people who participated in that discussion share a somewhat
different opinion of what it means to distribute free software.
Especially if the software is an essential part of a hardware product.
I think a more valid question would be - are those people open source
developers?
Because if they are not and want to make business with GPLed software
as third parties I can understand their fear. :)
Marek
Moreover, your goals sound odd for a lawyer without a
client. What free
software developers to you currently represent?
What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this?
10:40 p.m.
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:57:27AM +0100, Marek wrote:
I'm saying that the FSF is well aware of the implications of their license (that
users can pay for GPL software), and is not simply complicit. Rather, it would
seem that the FSF is not opposed to the selling of GPL software.
What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this?
If you know someone that wants to pay you, that is certainly his right to do so.
I'm simply trying to understand your motivation for championing a very
unorthodox interpretation of the GPL. Specifically, it is not clear to me who,
if anyone, would benefit from your interpretation. It seems like everyone would
lose: users have fewer freedoms to use the software (they can't sell it), and
developers get less commercial interest in their software. Is that not a
problem?
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
On Jan 28, 2008 12:51 AM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
When I pay $5 for a CD with software, it is not obvious to me whether I am
paying for distribution or paying for the software itself. Thus, from the
purchaser's perspective, the two are indistinguishable. This makes it
difficult, if not impossible, to place restrictions on what compensation is
allowed.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:19:22AM +0100, Marek
wrote:
? On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
> The FSF's position is clearly stated here:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about
this. They talk
about charging for distribution of sw.
True, but given that most commercial distributors do not deliver an invoice
with separate line items for software and distribution, the practical
distinction appears to be nil. I suspect this
is intentional, especially given the FSF's
repeated use "bad wording" that is consistent with this implication.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. > Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work?
What is your interest in
> this?
No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use
and appropriate
compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or
money, for the original copyright holders.
You are interested in increasing both users' and developers' respective
rights? That sounds difficult.
Moreover, your goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free
software developers to you currently represent?
11:51 p.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 3:40 AM, Forest Bond <forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:57:27AM +0100, Marek wrote:
And he should not be dealing with this issue. Also, the problem of
compensating authors, and copyright holders from distribution fees is
another problem which has not been addressed yet, and is not addressed
by the GPL. It's quite sad to see FSF encouraging distributors to
charge whatever they want, since there is no compensation mechansim
existent.This issue has already been addressed in e.g. music
industry(performing rights organization created and controlled by
composers, songwriters and music publishers in roder to seek
compensation for performance and distribution etc.) The solution would
be Voluntary Collective Licensing.
On Jan 28, 2008 12:51 AM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
When I pay $5 for a CD with software, it is not obvious to me whether I am
paying for distribution or paying for the software itself. Thus, from the
purchaser's perspective, the two are indistinguishable. On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:19:22AM +0100, Marek
wrote:
? On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
> The FSF's position is clearly stated here:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about
this. They talk
about charging for distribution of sw.
True, but given that most commercial distributors do not deliver an invoice
with separate line items for software and distribution, the practical
distinction appears to be nil. This makes it
difficult, if not impossible, to place restrictions on what compensation is
allowed.
I'm saying that the FSF is well aware of the implications of their license (that
users can pay for GPL software), and is not simply complicit. Rather, it would
seem that the FSF is not opposed to the selling of GPL software.
No, they always mean distribution for fee. And even if they didn't,
the GPL does, which is what counts afterall :)
I suspect
this is intentional, especially given the FSF's
repeated use "bad wording" that is consistent with this implication.
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
>>>> Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work? What is your interest
in
>>>> this?
>>
>>> No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use and appropriate
>>> compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or
>>> money, for the original copyright holders.
>>
Specifically, it is not clear to me who,
if anyone, would benefit from your interpretation.
Developers?
It seems like everyone would
lose: users have fewer freedoms to use the software (they can't sell it),
Seriously, is Linksys a user? Or Linksys at least tries to be the most
GPL compliant company, let's pick Hartmann.
and
developers get less commercial interest in their software. Is that not a
problem?
How about this:
You have 2 vendors of the same kind of software:
One offers you a limited and crippled proprietary SDK (limited time or
functionality or both) or you have to sign an NDA or whatever
or he offers an SDK only if you pay a license.
The other one is open source - you get full source code, full
functionality, unlimited time to develop
and you can even get enough time to market your product in order to
pay for separate license from your profit if the separate license
allows it.
Which one is more beneficial?
Besides the term "Commercial interest" means that the copyright
holders are also included. Why would you want commercial interest in
your software if you don't get anything for it, no money, no code.
Maybe there are motivations besides this, i dont know of any.
The interpretation doesn't touch any of these:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). (
a musician making a living with LinuxSampler)
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
(freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
(The other 3 freedoms are basically not about charging money in general)
Now that were talking about freedom, a GPL developer should have the
freedom to decide:
1. Linksys asks "Can we use your software in our hardware product for
free?" The developer:"Yes, provided that you are bound by all other
terms of GPL" ...Linksys:"mmm okay" (which would basically be another
license based on GPL with the exception that you can use software in
your sw/hw based product :)
2. legal Hartmann asks "Can we use your software in our hardware
product for free?" The developer:"No, we are issuing a separate one
time license, which costs $10000, you can modify, keep everything
proprietary etc etc" legal(!) Hartmann:"mmm okay"
This has 2 benefits:
1.The GPL developers have a means to encourage hw vendors to open
their hardware, they save money by doing that.
2. If a GPL developer chooses to ask money for his sw(literally), the
earned money can boost the development of his software, not to mention
- motivation as another side effect.
Marek
28 Jan
28 Jan
12:12 a.m.
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:51:34AM +0100, Marek wrote:
Besides the term "Commercial interest" means
that the copyright holders are
also included.
By releasing software under the terms of the GPL, authors give others the right
to distribute their software for a fee without any compensation. Surely, you
recognize this.
Why would you want commercial interest in your
software if you don't get
anything for it, no money, no code. Maybe there are motivations besides this,
i dont know of any.
This makes me wonder how well you understand open-source developers. You are,
after all, a lawyer, not a software developer. It does not surprise me in the
least that you can't imagine any motivation for publishing software beyond
financial compensation.
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
1:02 a.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 5:11 AM, Forest Bond <forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
Sounds like an insult to me. Name the motivations please. Do not
mention the freedom for others to run the code for any purpose, to
modify it, study it, change it to your needs, distribute to others,
whether modified or not. We've been through this already. It's 100%
compatible with the intepretation.
If you're not seeking financial compesation, you can choose LGPL, or
even a less restrictive license, or even go public domain.
Either you're financially compensated in some other ways, ... or you
can eat your code if it fits in your micorwave owen. Whatever. I'm
fine with that.
Marek
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:51:34AM +0100, Marek wrote:
Who said this? The GPL? The GPL grants third parties the right to
distribute their software for a fee.
The GPL doesn't *address* compensation for distribution at all.
Besides the term "Commercial interest"
means that the copyright holders are
also included.
By releasing software under the terms of the GPL, authors give others the right
to distribute their software for a fee without any compensation. Surely, you
recognize this. Why would you want commercial interest in your
software if you don't get
anything for it, no money, no code. Maybe there are motivations besides this,
i dont know of any.
This makes me wonder how well you understand open-source developers. You are,
after all, a lawyer, not a software developer. It does not surprise me in the
least that you can't imagine any motivation for publishing software beyond
financial compensation.
6:39 a.m.
The GPL doesn't *address* compensation for
distribution at all.
I understand your point of a missing compensation mechanism very well.
And surely open-source developers would be thankful if they could get
something back in return. Be it code or even money so they can make a
living. But although compensation is in no way enforced or even assured
it's already happening. On a voluntary basis.
The problem I see is the very moment you add a compensation mechanism to
the terms of the GPL (or any similar license terms) you make them less
free. And this is the exact opposite of the motivation of a FOSS
developer. Less freedom.
There's a social background to the GPL out of the scope of legal terms
and definitions. And that is what drives many people even if they don't
get any reward at all.
Yours sincerely,
Dennis Schulmeister
--
Dennis Schulmeister - Schifferstr. 1 - 76189 Karlsruhe - Germany
Tel: +49 721/5978883 - Mob: +49 152/01994400 - eMail: dennis(a)windows3.de
Now moved to the corridor: Hermes! (http://ncc-1701a.homelinux.net)
(mostly German)
http://www.windows3.de - http://www.denchris.de
http://www.audiominds.com - http://www.motagator.net/bands/65
<GunPG KeyID: B8382C97>
10:16 a.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 11:37 AM, Dennis Schulmeister
<linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de> wrote:
No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism at all. It
implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.
Marek
The GPL
doesn't *address* compensation for distribution at all.
I understand your point of a missing compensation mechanism very well.
And surely open-source developers would be thankful if they could get
something back in return. Be it code or even money so they can make a
living. But although compensation is in no way enforced or even assured
it's already happening. On a voluntary basis.
The problem I see is the very moment you add a compensation mechanism to
the terms of the GPL (or any similar license terms) y 
11:11 a.m.
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:16 +0100, Marek wrote:
No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism
at all. It
implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.
ground zero: from the GPL:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
so, the GPL is ***ONLY*** about copying, distribution and modification.
It has ***NOTHING*** to say about any use, commercial or otherwise that
does not involve one of these 3 activities. When it comes to these
activities, it lays down the terms under which you, the receiver of the
software may engage in them. And the message is the same in every case:
you may participate in any of them, in any way, at any time, for any
purpose as long any 3rd party receives the exact same rights for the
work you make available to them as you have received via the GPL.
neither the FSF nor the vast majority of people releasing software under
the terms of the GPL agree with your interpretation Marek. in fact, let
me amend that. i don't know of *any* other person who interprets the GPL
the way you are suggesting.
it doesn't really matter whether you can use decontextualized excerpts
of the GPL to argue a particular perspective. what you describe is not
the intent of the GPL, has not been the effect of the GPL and is not the
current (always subject to change) legal status of the GPL. there is
absolutely nothing in the GPL that stops anyone taking a program
released under its terms and selling it, in combination with other
hardware and/or software or by itself, for any amount whatsoever. the
only thing the GPL does is to require that the sale takes place under
the same terms - the buyer gets all the same rights as the GPL-bound
seller.
30 Jan
30 Jan
12:05 p.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 4:11 PM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:16 +0100, Marek wrote:
"You may charge for physical act of transferring a copy":
1. the GPL allows both commercial or non-commercial(costs only) charge
(since there's no limit as to what price you may charge).
2. the GPL only allows to charge for tranfering a copy or
*distribution* of copies
Which means it also deals with *commercial* distribution and since the
GPL deals with virtually any aspect of distribution, *including*
commercial distribution, it is *NOT* outside of its scope. The same
goes for commercial copying and commercial modifying. And guess what,
the GPL doesn't allow it for third parties, though not explicitly.
Because you cannot apply "Qui tacet, consentire videtur" unless
you're dealing with roman law.
So let's rephrase the statement:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification ...
whether or not a third party is charging for such copying,
distribution, or modification in order to make profit or cover the
costs for doing so.
No. GPL doesn't include any compensation
mechanism at all. It
implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.
ground zero: from the GPL:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
so, the GPL is ***ONLY*** about copying, distribution and modification.
It has ***NOTHING*** to say about any use, commercial or otherwise that
does not involve one of these 3 activities. When it comes to these
activities, it lays down the terms under which you, the receiver of the
software may engage in them. And the message is the same in every case:
you may participate in any of them, in any way, at any time, for any
purpose as long any 3rd party receives the exact same rights for the
work you make available to them as you have received via the GPL.
Paul, this is the General Public License, not General Public Labour.
And in fact, you' might be the one working your as* off in order to
fuel profit of others. And they might not give back.
If someone rips of parts of ardour in order to build a 24 track hw
recording machine (for example)
he won't even bother to release the parts.
What will you do?
Sue him? Time and money consuming, what do you get as a poor
opensource developer?
In the meantime suppose he's making loads of money, his hw recorder is
a big success.
Then after dozens of C&D letters he decides to release the parts on
his website and says, he's commited to opensource.
After that he sells his company for big amount of money.
What do you get?
Making money out of GPL licensed software for the copyright holders
can be important, sometimes essential in order to keep the project
from dying, investing in its development, rectruiting more
developers, speeding up the development making it more robust, less
error prone, more feature rich etc....
neither the FSF nor the vast majority of people
releasing software under
the terms of the GPL agree with your interpretation Marek. in fact, let
me amend that. i don't know of *any* other person who interprets the GPL
the way you are suggesting.
I mean, demonstrations all over the world, people holding their hands,
balloons all over the place, tons of petitions signed.
Seriously though, give me at least 10 links.
There's a deeper problem with the fact how people understand the GPL.
Many developers have considered switching from it for the reasons were
discussing(protecting from commercial misuse).
As far as i know you have considered that too if i'm not mistaken,
along with Christian(LinuxSampler).
If people interpreting the GPL in the woodstock sense of way, will
eventually stop doing it, and start looking for solutions in order to
squeeze some revenue out of their open source work,
they will eventually start seeking for a different license. And that
might have deep consequences. Every single developer can choose
another license, seek legal advice in order to do so, or in order to
write a new one, etc. With the GPL, you don't have to deal with such
things, since it's a defacto standard. Meaning the number of licenses
for which you need a legal intepretation is equal to 1, you can have a
look at the cases where the license has been defended in court,
almost no need to seek legal advice in order to protect certain
rights(if you you contect FSF), no need for third parties to seek
legal advice every time they pick another open source software, i.e.
rules get more understandable, don't change often, better for
everyone.
If a company makes profit with opensource software as a *third party*,
and is required to invest part of its profit into development of the
opensource product, either by paying or by coding, how much does such
fact make the software less free?
it doesn't really matter whether you can use decontextualized excerpts
What? Demostrate.
of the GPL to argue a particular perspective. what you
describe is not
the intent of the GPL, has not been the effect of the GPL and is not the
current (always subject to change) legal status of the GPL.
Again, the intent of the GPL is *your* intent, not the one of FSF -
declaration of will.
there is
absolutely nothing in the GPL that stops anyone taking a program
released under its terms and selling it, in combination with other
hardware and/or software or by itself, for any amount whatsoever. the
only thing the GPL does is to require that the sale takes place under
the same terms - the buyer gets all the same rights as the GPL-bound
seller.
You're talking about distribution, under the terms of GPL.
You can charge for distribution of software licensed under the terms
of GPL, not *for software* licensed under the terms of GPL.
Marek
1:14 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:05 +0100, Marek wrote:
"You may charge for physical act of transferring
a copy":
Your interpretation of this clause is at odds with the FSF's, and indeed
GPLv3 has been reworded to clarify that the GPLv2 phrasing did not mean
"You may ONLY charge for the physical act of transferring a copy". GPLv3
now makes it clear(er) that distribution simply by making the source
code available on the net will satisfy both the GPL's requirement that
distribution of the program be accompanied by the availability of source
code *AND* the meaning of "distribution" itself. The FSF also makes it
abundantly clear on their web site that you may charge any amount
whatsoever for whatever you want.
Specifically, on the same page that equates "selling software"
explicitly with "distributing software" (with no room for ambiguity at
all, the FSF says "Actually we encourage people who redistribute free
software to charge as much as they wish or can."
So let's rephrase the statement:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification ...
whether or not a third party is charging for such copying,
distribution, or modification in order to make profit or cover the
costs for doing so.
No, lets not rephrase because there is no need. The GPL already makes it
perfectly clear. The fact that you want to explicitly make it even
clearer doesn't change that. You also missed the most important part:
"are not covered by this license".
Paul, this is the General Public License, not General
Public Labour.
And in fact, you' might be the one working your as* off in order to
fuel profit of others. And they might not give back.
If someone rips of parts of ardour in order to build a 24 track hw
recording machine (for example)
he won't even bother to release the parts.
What will you do?
Sue him? Time and money consuming, what do you get as a poor
opensource developer?
This is the potential risk of using the GPL. A 3rd party redistributes
GPL'ed software, refuses to release their source, as required by the
GPL. They are in violation of at least one law in most jurisdictions. Do
you (or I) as a developer, want to risk having to prosecute this kind of
situation? If the answer is "no", then (a) don't use the GPL (b) don't
write useful software. (b) matters because the evidence so far suggests
that the use of the GPL doesn't significantly alter the likelihood that
useful source code will be pirated.
But this has *always* been the case. The FSF understands this, I
understand this, almost everyone who releases software under the GPL
understands this. The LS guys may or may not have fully thought through
the implications of producing very useful and potentially lucrative
software under the GPL, but the implication was *always* there that this
could happen.
Seriously though, give me at least 10 links.
You have been given links to the FSF website which make their position
very, very clear. I think you just don't basically believe that any sane
person would use a license that could potentially allow a law-evading
3rd party to profit from their work. You're wrong. Unless I'm insane and
so too are all the other people who have chosen to use the GPL knowing
clearly that this is a risk (albeit with any open source and even some
closed source projects, GPL or not)
If people interpreting the GPL in the woodstock sense
of way, will
eventually stop doing it, and start looking for solutions in order to
squeeze some revenue out of their open source work,
they will eventually start seeking for a different license.
They might, yes. It wouldn't be a bad idea in some cases. Ghostscript
did this years ago with the Aladdin Public License, which was basically
GPL-with-no-commercial-resale.
The point is, there is no evidence so far that use of the GPL has
impeded revenue-generation to a sufficient extent that most existing
license users want to stop using it. Many projects (eg. mySQL) that have
the potential for large scale revenue generation simply use a second
license when making arrangements with companies that do not wish to deal
with the GPL - does this constitute switching away from the GPL, or a
more creative approach? Projects like Asterix are doing quite with
revenue generation in spite of or because of their GPL'ed status.
And that
might have deep consequences. Every single developer can choose
another license, seek legal advice in order to do so, or in order to
write a new one, etc. With the GPL, you don't have to deal with such
things, since it's a defacto standard. Meaning the number of licenses
for which you need a legal intepretation is equal to 1,
Right, so it would be good if people didn't make a switch. But there are
very good reasons to do so in some cases.
If a company makes profit with opensource software as
a *third party*,
and is required to invest part of its profit into development of the
opensource product, either by paying or by coding, how much does such
fact make the software less free?
Nothing in the GPL nor any other "open source" or "free software"
license can require this.
You're talking about distribution, under the
terms of GPL.
You can charge for distribution of software licensed under the terms
of GPL, not *for software* licensed under the terms of GPL.
There is no clause in the GPL that says this. You take a limiting view
of the clause that begins "You may charge a fee for ..." ; most others
taken an demonstrative view of it.
6:24 p.m.
On Jan 30, 2008 6:14 PM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
Ok. You say - only deals with copying, modifying, distributing.
Perfectly clear. Nothing else, commercial use including.
But then, you may charge(!). But we don't deal with that?
Neither have you when you considered switching away from the GPL?
Neither will those who will consider switching away for the very same reason?
This is a big problem IMO.
No Paul i'm sorry to say that but you haven't read my other mails ,
we've been through this with some other person discussing this(don't
remember who it was).
How so? Giving back code is already explicitly covered.
No there' no such thing as limiting view and demonstrative view.
There's casual and comprehensive enumeration.
You may charge for distribution is no casual enumeration.
I gave an extensive interpretation of the GPL(as opposed to a
restrictive one, which everyone likes to prefer, to their of
disadvantage i believe).
Marek
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:05 +0100, Marek wrote:
Stop right there. It really seems to me that you haven't read my
emails. Declaration of will. Not FSF.
Also, search for 'we believe' in their FAQ.
"You may charge for physical act of
transferring a copy":
Your interpretation of this clause is at odds with the FSF's, and indeed
GPLv3 has been reworded to clarify that the GPLv2 phrasing did not mean
"You may ONLY charge for the physical act of transferring a copy". GPLv3
now makes it clear(er) that distribution simply by making the source
code available on the net will satisfy both the GPL's requirement that
distribution of the program be accompanied by the availability of source
code *AND* the meaning of "distribution" itself.
You mean by saying "You may charge any price or no price for each copy
that you convey," ? :)
Please read my interpretation of the v2 again.
The FSF also makes it
abundantly clear on their web site that you may charge any amount
whatsoever for whatever you want.
Do i say something else? I say, for the act of physical transfer, or
distribution, yes. Otherwise, no.
Specifically, on the same page that equates "selling software"
explicitly with "distributing software" (with no room for ambiguity at
all, the FSF says "Actually we encourage people who redistribute free
software to charge as much as they wish or can."
Redistribute. Sigh. Please read my other email about this(about using
bad wording).
So let's rephrase the statement:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification ...
whether or not a third party is charging for such copying,
distribution, or modification in order to make profit or cover the
costs for doing so.
No, lets not rephrase because there is no need. The GPL already makes it
perfectly clear. The fact that you want to explicitly make it even
clearer doesn't change that. You also missed the most important part:
"are not covered by this license".
Charging. Is not covered...is covered....?
Paul, this is the General Public License, not
General Public Labour.
And in fact, you' might be the one working your as* off in order to
fuel profit of others. And they might not give back.
If someone rips of parts of ardour in order to build a 24 track hw
recording machine (for example)
he won't even bother to release the parts.
What will you do?
Sue him? Time and money consuming, what do you get as a poor
opensource developer?
This is the potential risk of using the GPL. A 3rd party redistributes
GPL'ed software, refuses to release their source, as required by the
GPL. They are in violation of at least one law in most jurisdictions. Do
you (or I) as a developer, want to risk having to prosecute this kind of
situation? If the answer is "no", then (a) don't use the GPL (b) don't
write useful software. (b) matters because the evidence so far suggests
that the use of the GPL doesn't significantly alter the likelihood that
useful source code will be pirated.
But this has *always* been the case. The FSF understands this, I
understand this, almost everyone who releases software under the GPL
understands this. The LS guys may or may not have fully thought through
the implications of producing very useful and potentially lucrative
software under the GPL, but the implication was *always* there that this
could happen. Seriously though, give me at least 10 links.
You have been given links to the FSF website which make their position
very, very clear. I think you just don't basically believe that any
sane
person would use a license that could potentially allow a law-evading
3rd party to profit from their work. You're wrong. Unless I'm insane and
so too are all the other people who have chosen to use the GPL knowing
clearly that this is a risk (albeit with any open source and even some
closed source projects, GPL or not)
That's the woodstock POV(which i am not opposed to), but then again a
few years back you considered to switch away from GPL to alladin.
If a company makes profit with opensource
software as a *third party*,
and is required to invest part of its profit into development of the
opensource product, either by paying or by coding, how much does such
fact make the software less free?
Nothing in the GPL nor any other "open source" or "free software"
license can require this. You're talking about distribution, under the
terms of GPL.
You can charge for distribution of software licensed under the terms
of GPL, not *for software* licensed under the terms of GPL.
There is no clause in the GPL that says this. You take a limiting view
of the clause that begins "You may charge a fee for ..." ; most others
taken an demonstrative view of it. 
29 Jan
29 Jan
2:01 a.m.
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:16 +0100, Marek wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 11:37 AM, Dennis Schulmeister
<linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de> wrote:
No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism at all. It
implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.
This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the entire purpose of
Free Software, and the GPL. It's the very first 'freedom' (out of four)
in the definition of Free Software, which was written by the same person
as the GPL, for the same reasons.
If the Free Software Definition is too vague there is plenty of
information on the FSF site that clearly explains this, with rationale.
Don't speak as if you were an expert on a subject when you clearly have
no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.
-DR-
The GPL
doesn't *address* compensation for distribution at all.
I understand your point of a missing compensation mechanism very well.
And surely open-source developers would be thankful if they could get
something back in return. Be it code or even money so they can make a
living. But although compensation is in no way enforced or even assured
it's already happening. On a voluntary basis.
The problem I see is the very moment you add a compensation mechanism to
the terms of the GPL (or any similar license terms) y 
10:42 a.m.
Dave Robillard wrote:
This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the
entire purpose of
Free Software, and the GPL. It's the very first 'freedom' (out of four)
in the definition of Free Software, which was written by the same person
as the GPL, for the same reasons.
Okay. Now let me add more fuel to this useless discussion [1]:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
Note, that this license (Affero GPL) seems to be considered a "free,
copyleft license" by FSF itself.
Still, it restricts the actual *use* (and not just *distribution*) of
covered software. The exact type of restriction is different from one in
LinuxSampler license, but that's because it tries to solve a different
problem.
LinuxSampler license is intended to prevent hardware makers from
profiting off the LS project by making it a part of hardware box, AGPL
is intended to prevent Web companies from profiting (in some or other
way) off projects by combining it with other code and running it on a
public server.
Similarities:
- intention of prevention of uncooperative behaviour
- restriction of use
- encourages dual-licensing to companies that *really* want to use a
project in closed source derivatives
- based on GPL
Differences:
- LS bans: commercial && hardware
- AGPL bans: derived works && closed-source modifications && use on
network servers
Krzysztof
[1] Hopefully "fuel for thinking", not "fuel for name-calling". YMMV.
30 Jan
30 Jan
12:55 p.m.
On Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM, Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:16 +0100, Marek wrote:
Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob you of the freedom to
run the code, study it, modify, distribute or make ascii art paintings
out of it or whatever like that?
On Jan 28, 2008 11:37 AM, Dennis Schulmeister
<linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de> wrote:
No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism at all. It
implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.
This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the entire purpose of
Free Software, and the GPL. The GPL
doesn't *address* compensation for distribution at all.
I understand your point of a missing compensation mechanism very well.
And surely open-source developers would be thankful if they could get
something back in return. Be it code or even money so they can make a
living. But although compensation is in no way enforced or even assured
it's already happening. On a voluntary basis.
The problem I see is the very moment you add a compensation mechanism to
the terms of the GPL (or any similar license terms) y Don't speak as if you were an expert on a subject
when you clearly have
no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.
Again, give me the facts.
Do you need a team of 10 PhD lawyers with 35+ experience of
succesfully defending the GPL in court, all over the world?
And you know what Dave, from what i learned from your reactions, it
still wouldn't do any justice.
Marek
1:05 p.m.
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 16:55:19 Marek wrote:
We should probably stop feeding the troll. Must be lonely under that
bridge...
Gordon
On Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM, Dave Robillard
<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
Your interpretation robs me of the ability to use GPLed code within a
commercial product. This is explicitly contrary to the terms of the GPL.
If you look at the FSF's website, they even have a handy FAQ that explains all
this. Perhaps you should take the time to read this.
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:16 +0100, Marek wrote:
Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob you of the freedom to
run the code, study it, modify, distribute or make ascii art paintings
out of it or whatever like that? On Jan 28, 2008 11:37 AM, Dennis Schulmeister
<linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de> wrote:
This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the entire purpose of
Free Software, and the GPL. > The GPL doesn't *address* compensation
for distribution at all.
I understand your point of a missing compensation mechanism very
well. And surely open-source developers would be thankful if they
could get something back in return. Be it code or even money so they
can make a living. But although compensation is in no way enforced or
even assured it's already happening. On a voluntary basis.
The problem I see is the very moment you add a compensation mechanism
to the terms of the GPL (or any similar license terms) y
No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism at all. It
implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution. Don't
speak as if you were an expert on a subject when you clearly have
no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.
Again, give me the facts.
Do you need a team of 10 PhD lawyers with 35+ experience of
succesfully defending the GPL in court, all over the world?
And you know what Dave, from what i learned from your reactions, it
still wouldn't do any justice.
1:43 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:05 +0000, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 16:55:19 Marek wrote:
It also imposes wishes on developers who release their software under
the GPL with an understanding of the implications.
Despite what Marek says about the evils of commercial exploitation or
whatever, by licensing under the GPL developers /encourage/ commercial
use - so long as changes get contributed back to the community.
These are my wishes, and countless other developer's wishes, despite
what a certain non-developer (who ironically only exploits GPL software,
not creates it) might say.
People who want to make a CD full of free software and sell it, at a
profit, are more than welcome to do so.
Share & enjoy, as long as you share back. Is that really so complicated
to understand?
-DR-
Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob
you of the freedom to
run the code, study it, modify, distribute or make ascii art paintings
out of it or whatever like that?
Your interpretation robs me of the ability to use GPLed code within a
commercial product. This is explicitly contrary to the terms of the GPL.
6:38 p.m.
On Jan 30, 2008 6:43 PM, Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:05 +0000, Gordon JC Pearce
wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 16:55:19 Marek wrote:
> > Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob you of the freedom to
> > run the code, study it, modify, distribute or make ascii art paintings
> > out of it or whatever like that?
>
> Your interpretation robs me of the ability to use GPLed code within a
> commercial product. This is explicitly contrary to the terms of the GPL.
No it's not contrary. And if you're a third party, yes.
It also imposes wishes on developers who release their software under
the GPL with an understanding of the implications.
Despite what Marek says about the evils of commercial exploitation or
whatever, by licensing under the GPL developers /encourage/ commercial
use - so long as changes get contributed back to the community.
My product is a router which uses your software in an unmodified form.
It pulls firmware directly from net. I don't offer anything for
download. Note, this would *not* be a distribution of your software,
this would be selling of my router.
How do you solve this issue?
These are my wishes, and countless other developer's wishes, despite
what a certain non-developer (who ironically only exploits GPL software,
not creates it) might say.
How do you know i'm not using MacOSX?
If these are you wishes, how about simply not taking my point of view,
or my advice?
How about not insulting someone who's trying to help those who are
interested, if you are not interested?
People who want to make a CD full of free software and sell it, at a
profit, are more than welcome to do so.
That's distribution. Not selling software.
Share & enjoy, as long as you share back. Is that really so complicated
to understand?
It seems it is. Which is why you should read my emails more carefully.
Marek
6:51 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 23:38 +0100, Marek wrote:
What issue? You're using GPLed software in a manner permitted by the
licence. Where's the issue?
What's that got to do with the price of mince?
Despite what
Marek says about the evils of commercial exploitation or
whatever, by licensing under the GPL developers /encourage/ commercial
use - so long as changes get contributed back to the community.
My product is a router which uses your software in an unmodified form.
It pulls firmware directly from net. I don't offer anything for
download. Note, this would *not* be a distribution of your software,
this would be selling of my router.
How do you solve this issue? These are my
wishes, and countless other developer's wishes, despite
what a certain non-developer (who ironically only exploits GPL software,
not creates it) might say.
How do you know i'm not using MacOSX? If these are you wishes, how about simply not taking
my point of view,
or my advice?
How about not insulting someone who's trying to help those who are
interested, if you are not interested?
And that, folks, is why you shouldn't take drugs.
Marek, lay off the mind-altering substances, okay? You're starting to
worry us a bit here.
Gordon
People who want to make a CD full of free software and sell it, at a
profit, are more than welcome to do so.
That's distribution. Not selling software.
7:15 p.m.
On Jan 30, 2008 11:46 PM, Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp(a)gjcp.net> wrote:
What's that got to do with the price of mince?
Yeah right, nothing to say, let's start offending people.
And if you were reading the conversation more carefully you would know
why the FSF chose "to charge for physical transfer" and not "to charge
for software".
And please don't paste the link for their "Selling software"
article. I've commented on that already.
Marek
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 23:38 +0100, Marek wrote:
What issue? You're using GPLed software in a manner permitted by the
licence. Where's the issue?
Go ahead. Elaborate.
Despite
what Marek says about the evils of commercial exploitation or
whatever, by licensing under the GPL developers /encourage/ commercial
use - so long as changes get contributed back to the community.
My product is a router which uses your software in an unmodified form.
It pulls firmware directly from net. I don't offer anything for
download. Note, this would *not* be a distribution of your software,
this would be selling of my router.
How do you solve this issue? These are
my wishes, and countless other developer's wishes, despite
what a certain non-developer (who ironically only exploits GPL software,
not creates it) might say.
How do you know i'm not using MacOSX? If these are you wishes, how about simply not
taking my point of view,
or my advice?
How about not insulting someone who's trying to help those who are
interested, if you are not interested?
And that, folks, is why you shouldn't take drugs.
Marek, lay off the mind-altering substances, okay? You're starting to
worry us a bit here.
People who want to make a CD full of free software and sell it, at a
profit, are more than welcome to do so.
That's distribution. Not selling software.
7:22 p.m.
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 00:14 +0100, Marek wrote:
Go ahead. Elaborate.
Wait, what? Elaborate what? You're the one that came up with a
non-issue, and now you want me to explain why it is an issue?
I already said - under the circumstances you describe, you're using GPL
sofware in a perfectly legitimate way. What is the issue to be solved?
Do you think that somehow I might want to solve the "issue" of someone
using GPLed software in a commercial product?
I honestly don't know what you're asking here. I'm not even sure you
know what you're asking.
Gordon
My product is a router which uses your software in an
unmodified form.
It pulls firmware directly from net. I don't offer anything for
download. Note, this would *not* be a distribution of your software,
this would be selling of my router.
How do you solve this issue?
What issue? You're using GPLed software in a manner permitted by the
licence. Where's the issue?
7:43 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 23:18 +0000, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 00:14 +0100, Marek wrote:
Go ahead. Elaborate.
Wait, what? Elaborate what? You're the one that came up with a
non-issue, and now you want me to explain why it is an issue?
I'll answer instead.
There are two scenarios:
1) said router downloads code that is unmodified from the software
i have licensed under the GPL
2) said router downloads code that is modified
Condition (1) : the only gray area is whether distribution has occured.
GPLv3 tries to clarify that, but not very well. Either way, it doesn't
matter because the software has not been modified, and is thus freely
available for the user.
Condition (2) : again, the gray area is whether distribution has
occured. again, GPLv3 tries to clarify that. it would take a court to
decide whether it had in a specific case. So - what if it *is*
distribution? Then either the router manufacturer has to make the source
available; if they don't, we're just back to the same old story of
companies violating the GPL. If they do, no problem.
If it *isn't* distribution in the eyes of the law, then there is a
loophole, though its one that GPLv3 attempts to rectify with its use of
the term "convey". I suspect that if the s/w were GPLv3 licensed, no
court would dispute that the router manufacturer is "conveying" the
software to the user.
My product is a router which uses your software in an
unmodified form.
It pulls firmware directly from net. I don't offer anything for
download. Note, this would *not* be a distribution of your software,
this would be selling of my router.
How do you solve this issue?
What issue? You're using GPLed software in a manner permitted by the
licence. Where's the issue?
31 Jan
31 Jan
6:38 p.m.
On Jan 31, 2008 12:43 AM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 23:18 +0000, Gordon JC Pearce
wrote:
No distribution of GPL software has occured since all you get is a
router. In the specific case i mentioned you don't touch the software
at all, you don't update.
You don't get to see the software.
In case of Linksys, they are providing object and corresponding source
code for their routers on their *website*.
Meaning, they distribute the object code that corresponds to the
object code they use in their hardware product.
They distribute by "offering access from a designated place", not by
selling hardware.
So for example, in the case of the german court judgement, the fact
that they are manufacturing hardware is of no relevance to the fact
they are distributing GPLed object code and corresponding source code.
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 00:14 +0100, Marek wrote:
Wait, what? Elaborate what? You're the one that came up with a
non-issue, and now you want me to explain why it is an issue?
I'll answer instead.
There are two scenarios:
1) said router downloads code that is unmodified from the software
i have licensed under the GPL
2) said router downloads code that is modified
Condition (1) : the only gray area is whether distribution has occured.
GPLv3 tries to clarify that, but not very well. Either way, it doesn't
matter because the software has not been modified, and is thus freely
available for the user. > My
product is a router which uses your software in an unmodified form.
> It pulls firmware directly from net. I don't offer anything for
> download. Note, this would *not* be a distribution of your software,
> this would be selling of my router.
>
> How do you solve this issue?
What issue? You're using GPLed software in a manner permitted by the
licence. Where's the issue?
Go ahead. Elaborate.
Condition (2) : again, the gray area is whether distribution has
occured. again, GPLv3 tries to clarify that. it would take a court to
decide whether it had in a specific case. So - what if it *is*
distribution? Then either the router manufacturer has to make the source
available; if they don't, we're just back to the same old story of
companies violating the GPL. If they do, no problem.
If it *isn't* distribution in the eyes of the law, then there is a
loophole, though its one that GPLv3 attempts to rectify with its use of
the term "convey". I suspect that if the s/w were GPLv3 licensed, no
court would dispute that the router manufacturer is "conveying" the
software to the user.
In GPLv3, to "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that
enables other parties to make or receive copies. You don't "receive a
copy *in* the router".
You just get the router. In case you have to manually update the
router software, you receive an object code that corresponds to the
object code the manufacturer used in the router, either "fixed on a
durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange", or
the manufacturer "offers access from a designated place".
This is how the requirement to "enable other parties to make or
receive copies" is fullfiled, if the software represents a substantial
part of the User product.
On the other hand you may aswell convey a Linux distribution *in* a
laptop you're (re)selling, since you received a copy of the Linux
distribution installed on the laptop you have purchased. You are free
to choose another software product if you wish so.
Marek
30 Jan
30 Jan
7:45 p.m.
On Jan 31, 2008 12:18 AM, Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp(a)gjcp.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 00:14 +0100, Marek wrote:
Go ahead. Elaborate.
Wait, what? Elaborate what? You're the one that came up with a
non-issue, and now you want me to explain why it is an issue?
Well you said i don't know what i'm talking about, using drugs, you'll
have to stab me, etc etc.
Now i'm asking you how you would solve this issue wrt GPL.
I'm interested to see whether you can judge that i'm talking nonsense
or not, according to your own words.
My product is a router which uses your software in an
unmodified form.
It pulls firmware directly from net. I don't offer anything for
download. Note, this would *not* be a distribution of your software,
this would be selling of my router.
How do you solve this issue?
What issue? You're using GPLed software in a manner permitted by the
licence. Where's the issue?
I already said - under the circumstances you describe, you're using GPL
sofware in a perfectly legitimate way. What is the issue to be solved?
Do you think that somehow I might want to solve the "issue" of someone
using GPLed software in a commercial product?
I honestly don't know what you're asking here. I'm not even sure you
know what you're asking.
Again, no explanation. Sigh.
Marek
8:01 p.m.
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 00:45 +0100, Marek wrote:
Now i'm asking you how you would solve this issue
wrt GPL.
I'm interested to see whether you can judge that i'm talking nonsense
or not, according to your own words.
I don't know what "issue" you're trying to get me to solve.
I am walking along a path. How do you solve this?
Gordon
9:04 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 23:56 +0000, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 00:45 +0100, Marek wrote:
Marek debating, the algorithm:
a) Come up with crazy idea
b) Present crazy idea
c) Observe everyone, without exception, disagreeing
d) Assume people actually take you seriously, no matter what
e) Imply that it is clearly everyone else's duty to waste time
meticulously deconstructing your silly argument, otherwise you're
right because.. um.. you said so?
if (someone with nothing better to do does, in fact, point out an
obvious falsity in your argument) {
f1) Modify argument without admitting it, pretend it never happened
} else {
f2) Imply that you have somehow won, by being so ridiculous your
points aren't even worth refuting
}
g) GOTO (a)
e) Profit? Somehow?
-DR-
Now i'm asking you how you would solve this
issue wrt GPL.
I'm interested to see whether you can judge that i'm talking nonsense
or not, according to your own words.
I don't know what "issue" you're trying to get me to solve.
I am walking along a path. How do you solve this? 
31 Jan
31 Jan
1:17 a.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 20:04 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
e) Imply that it is clearly everyone else's duty
to waste time
meticulously deconstructing your silly argument, otherwise you're
right because.. um.. you said so?
e) Profit? Somehow?
There are two lines labelled 'e'. Are they supposed to run in parallel,
or randomly the one or the other, or is it a bug? (There is no line
labelled 'f' ...)
12:11 p.m.
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 06:17 +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 20:04 -0500, Dave Robillard
wrote:
Damn! :)
-DR-
e) Imply that it is clearly everyone else's
duty to waste time
meticulously deconstructing your silly argument, otherwise you're
right because.. um.. you said so?
e) Profit? Somehow?
There are two lines labelled 'e'. Are they supposed to run in parallel,
or randomly the one or the other, or is it a bug? (There is no line
labelled 'f' ...) 
30 Jan
30 Jan
7:14 p.m.
Hi All,
This is not exactly a reply to Marek's message bu to this discussion in
general.
Everybody who makes any statements about GPL should read and (hopefully)
understand what GPL actually says.
From GPLv2:
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights."
The above says very clearly that "You can distribute copies of such
programs _for a fee_". In other words there is nothing that says you
cannot make money on selling GPLv2'd software (binaries) provided that
somebody is willing to pay.
Then:
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"
The above says that you have to distribute the sources to everybody you
have distributed the software itself (binaries). The cost cannot be more
than the cost of the distribution media. You are not even required to
give the sources to everybody but just to the persons/companies you have
sold the software.
Best regards,
Hannu
Marek wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 6:43 PM, Dave Robillard
<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:05 +0000, Gordon JC
Pearce wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 16:55:19 Marek wrote:
>
>> Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob you of the freedom to
>> run the code, study it, modify, distribute or make ascii art paintings
>> out of it or whatever like that?
>>
> Your interpretation robs me of the ability to use GPLed code within a
> commercial product. This is explicitly contrary to the terms of the GPL.
>
No it's not contrary. And if you're a third party, yes.
It also imposes wishes on developers who release
their software under
the GPL with an understanding of the implications.
Despite what Marek says about the evils of commercial exploitation or
whatever, by licensing under the GPL developers /encourage/ commercial
use - so long as changes get contributed back to the community.
My product is a router which uses your software in an unmodified form.
It pulls firmware directly from net. I don't offer anything for
download. Note, this would *not* be a distribution of your software,
this would be selling of my router.
How do you solve this issue?
These are my wishes, and countless other
developer's wishes, despite
what a certain non-developer (who ironically only exploits GPL software,
not creates it) might say.
How do you know i'm not using MacOSX?
If these are you wishes, how about simply not taking my point of view,
or my advice?
How about not insulting someone who's trying to help those who are
interested, if you are not interested?
People who want to make a CD full of free
software and sell it, at a
profit, are more than welcome to do so.
That's distribution. Not selling software.
Share & enjoy, as long as you share back. Is
that really so complicated
to understand?
It seems it is. Which is why you should read my emails more carefully.
Marek
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
8:50 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 23:38 +0100, Marek wrote:
I don't think pushing your crazy interpretation of the GPL that - by
your own admission - noone else on the planet agrees with is "helping"
anyone very much.
Don't worry; like any remotely sane person, I won't be taking your legal
advice any time soon. Call me crazy, but I'll stick with real lawyers,
existance of numerous large (and otherwise) companies who depend on the
actual meaning of the GPL, and over a decade of precedent over some lone
crackpot on a mailing list.
I have read plenty of information about GPL interpretation from people
who actually know what they're talking about, thanks. You seem to think
it's a given that your emails are actually worth extremely careful
analysis, and that other people should be your voluntary research
assistants no less.
Reality check time, Marek. Noone takes your nonsense seriously.
-DR-
On Jan 30, 2008 6:43 PM, Dave Robillard
<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
Then please, point us to the specific clause in the GPL which prohibits
commercial use of the course code.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:05 +0000, Gordon JC
Pearce wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 16:55:19 Marek wrote:
> > Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob you of the
freedom to
> > run the code, study it, modify,
distribute or make ascii art
paintings
> > out of it or whatever like that?
>
> Your interpretation robs me of the ability to use GPLed code
within a
> commercial product. This is explicitly
contrary to the terms of
the GPL.
No it's not contrary. And if you're a third party, yes. My product is a router which uses your software in an
unmodified form.
It pulls firmware directly from net. I don't offer anything for
download. Note, this would *not* be a distribution of your software,
this would be selling of my router.
How do you solve this issue?
If the firmware is distributed, then the source code must be
distributed. This is textbook GPL violation that has precisely nothing
to do with money or commercial use.
These are my
wishes, and countless other developer's wishes[...]
If these are you wishes, how about simply not taking my point of view,
or my advice?
How about not insulting someone who's trying to help those who are
interested, if you are not interested? Share &
enjoy, as long as you share back. Is that really so complicated
to understand?
It seems it is. Which is why you should read my emails more carefully. 
9:39 p.m.
Dave and Marek! It seems now, it is mostly you discussing and flaming,
violating basics of the list ettiquet. And let's not be childish, it doesn't
matter who started being absuive. Either stop it or go off-list. There you can
bull-shit and curse yourselves to hell.
Regards? probably! :-)
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
10:35 p.m.
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 02:39 +0100, Julien Claassen wrote:
Dave and Marek! It seems now, it is mostly you
discussing and flaming,
violating basics of the list ettiquet. And let's not be childish, it doesn't
matter who started being absuive. Either stop it or go off-list. There you can
bull-shit and curse yourselves to hell.
Regards? probably! :-)
Julien
Marek is adamantly spewing nonsense about the GPL, and I am responding.
Maybe I shouldn't, but while we're whining: centering me out because I
happened to get home and catch up on email at the same time as you is
hardly very fair when several other people are feeding the idiot much
more than I have.
Anyway, having conveniently reimplemented Marek as an algorithm, we are
all now free to waste our time fighting the forces of stupid until the
cows come home without involving a public mailing list or waiting for
tedious time delays involved with real people communication ;)
The astute reader will notice that step (e) (profit) is unreachable.
-DR- (Who didn't intend on posting to this thread again anyway, for the
record)
31 Jan
31 Jan
3:47 a.m.
New subject: Enough already! Re: [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Please,
I can't keep up with the mail stream, for one thing. For another, as has
been noted, this is getting very watered. Don't know how many sides to
the argument but they are not going to meet anytime soon.
Create a LAL (legal) list or whatever.
Thanks,
Robert
11:04 p.m.
New subject: Enough already! Re: [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 08:46 +0100, Robert Jonsson wrote:
Please,
I can't keep up with the mail stream, for one thing. For another, as has
been noted, this is getting very watered. Don't know how many sides to
the argument but they are not going to meet anytime soon.
Create a LAL (legal) list or whatever.
This is a quote from Linux about flame wars in hte kernel list...
"I'm also not very polite, I actually like arguing with people, and
there's a lot of people who like arguing in general in the kernel
community. Some people don't like doing anything but arguing and we try
to discourage that, so sometimes you see this flare up and it goes on
for a while and then it dies down. Sometimes, as a result we change how
we do things."
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;444282619;fp;;fpid;;pf;1
If you don't like the thread just don't read it.
Cheers.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
1 Feb
1 Feb
1:27 a.m.
New subject: Enough already! Re: [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 10:02 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
If you don't like the thread just don't read
it.
One thing is flamewars on religious issues like MIDI or Integer vs Float
- which can be fun to watch - another is flamewars on religious issues
that are totally off-topic.
There is a recent thread over at Groklaw which might be much more
fitting for the subject at hand:
The Non-Revocable GPL
---------------------
I know by now you've seen the notice by the guy claiming to "revoke" the
GPL license on his code, because I'm getting email about it.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163
Cheers.
--
30 Jan
30 Jan
1:18 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:55 +0100, Marek wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM, Dave Robillard
<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
I never said it does. I said that the GPL says no such thing. What
your clearly false interpretation may or may not imply is irrelevant.
Can you find /any/ reference whatsoever to someone reasonably claiming
that the GPL prohibits commercial use? You can certainly find tens of
thousands of references to the fact that it does not, and it is simply
a /fact/ that the license was created explicitly to not prevent any use.
While the intentions may not define the license, that several lawyers
have gone over it, literally down to the meaning of each individual
word, and affirm that it does adhere to it's "spirit" is slightly more
compelling evidence than some quack on l-a-d with a penchant for
annoying people.
-DR-
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:16 +0100, Marek wrote:
Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob you of the freedom to
run the code, study it, modify, distribute or make ascii art paintings
out of it or whatever like that? On Jan 28, 2008 11:37 AM, Dennis Schulmeister
<linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de> wrote:
This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the entire purpose of
Free Software, and the GPL. > The GPL doesn't *address* compensation
for distribution at all.
I understand your point of a missing compensation mechanism very well.
And surely open-source developers would be thankful if they could get
something back in return. Be it code or even money so they can make a
living. But although compensation is in no way enforced or even assured
it's already happening. On a voluntary basis.
The problem I see is the very moment you add a compensation mechanism to
the terms of the GPL (or any similar license terms) y
No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism at all. It
implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.
7:02 p.m.
On Jan 30, 2008 6:18 PM, Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:55 +0100, Marek wrote:
Not expicitly. Which is why a lawyer usually has a set of methods and
tools in order to interpret a license if certain questions arise that
aren't explicitly covered.
I've chosen extensive intepretation of the GPLv2.
On Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM, Dave Robillard
<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
I never said it does. I said that the GPL says no such thing. On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:16 +0100, Marek wrote:
Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob you of the freedom to
run the code, study it, modify, distribute or make ascii art paintings
out of it or whatever like that? On Jan 28, 2008 11:37 AM, Dennis Schulmeister
<linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de> wrote:
> > The GPL doesn't *address* compensation for distribution at all.
>
> I understand your point of a missing compensation mechanism very well.
> And surely open-source developers would be thankful if they could get
> something back in return. Be it code or even money so they can make a
> living. But although compensation is in no way enforced or even assured
> it's already happening. On a voluntary basis.
>
> The problem I see is the very moment you add a compensation mechanism to
> the terms of the GPL (or any similar license terms) y
No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism at all. It
implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.
This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the entire purpose of
Free Software, and the GPL. What
your clearly false interpretation may or may not imply is irrelevant.
Can you find /any/ reference whatsoever to someone reasonably claiming
that the GPL prohibits commercial use?
No. What you are saying is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there's is
any opinion that claims you can, or any opinion claiming
otherwise(both offering a comprehensive explanation). Except court
judgements in some countries(common law).
Clearly false interpretation - please show me(not the one you have
given me, i need facts, quoting GPL, puting my interpretation in
question etc).
You can certainly find tens of
thousands of references to the fact that it does not, and it is simply
a /fact/ that the license was created explicitly to not prevent any use.
Give me 3. (should be easy)
While the intentions may not define the license, that several lawyers
have gone over it, literally down to the meaning of each individual
word, and affirm that it does adhere to it's "spirit" is slightly more
compelling evidence than some quack on l-a-d with a penchant for
annoying people.
I need evidence that you know what you are talking about.
Marek
8:35 p.m.
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 00:02 +0100, Marek wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 6:18 PM, Dave Robillard
<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
Hah! Well, at least you're entertaining.
Marek discovers the true meaning of the GPL! Entire Free Software
community and scores of lawyers wrong! Countless companies to be sued
by developers! Stop the presses!
-DR-
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:55 +0100, Marek wrote:
No. What you are saying is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there's is
any opinion that claims you can, or any opinion claiming
otherwise(both offering a comprehensive explanation). On Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM, Dave Robillard
<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
What
your clearly false interpretation may or may not imply is irrelevant.
Can you find /any/ reference whatsoever to someone reasonably claiming
that the GPL prohibits commercial use?
8:43 p.m.
Really folks. How old are you? 8 or over 18? For the sake of humans
development I suppose the first. :-(
Regards and don't misplace your lollipops, you might not get new ones...
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
28 Jan
28 Jan
12:20 a.m.
Hi,
Let me try at a little summary. I'd like, for posterity's sake, to concisely
characterize your views on the subject. Here goes:
You think that the GPL is a terrible license from the developer's perspective.
Developers should instead assign license on a per-user basis, charging more
money from users that are deemed less likely to contribute back to the project.
You speak of re-interpreting the GPL, but what you really want is for
open-source developers to use different license terms entirely. You don't think
the GPL adequately protects developers' interests.
You also apparently think that most current interpretations of the GPL are
largely incorrect, and everyone distributing GPL software as part of a
commercial product is already violating the terms of the license.
Is that correct?
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
12:50 a.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 5:19 AM, Forest Bond <forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
Hi,
Let me try at a little summary. I'd like, for posterity's sake, to concisely
characterize your views on the subject. Here goes:
You think that the GPL is a terrible license from the developer's perspective.
The GPL is a very powerful license, which is all i wanted to show, it
even includes the so called LinuxSampler exception,
it's very restrictive to the advantage of oss developers yet it grants
all freedoms according to FSF.
Developers should instead assign license on a per-user
basis, charging more
money from users that are deemed less likely to contribute back to the project.
Ever heard of dual licensing?
You speak of re-interpreting the GPL, but what you really want is for
open-source developers to use different license terms entirely. You don't think
the GPL adequately protects developers' interests.
A legal intepretation is something else than rewriting the license terms.
You also apparently think that most current interpretations of the GPL are
largely incorrect, and everyone distributing GPL software as part of a
commercial product is already violating the terms of the license.
Is that correct?
No i think you should read my emails again. I think i said more than enough.
Marek
29 Jan
29 Jan
10:58 a.m.
On Sunday 27 January 2008 23:57:27 Marek wrote:
What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me
for this?
I'll pay you to shut up about the GPL...
Seriously, you don't appear to understand what you're talking about. You keep
making the same nonsensical point over and over again.
If you don't put a sock in it fairly quickly, then I'm afraid I'm going to
have to stab you.
Gordon
1:40 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:57:49PM +0000, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
If you don't put a sock in it fairly quickly, then
I'm afraid I'm going to
have to stab you.
Geez, easy, keep it somewhat civil...
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
2:06 p.m.
On Tuesday 29 January 2008, Forest Bond wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:57:49PM +0000, Gordon JC
Pearce wrote:
Yeah, back in my amiga days we used to threaten to send Vino, Tony and Luigi
over with greetings in violin cases. ;-)
If you don't put a sock in it fairly quickly,
then I'm afraid I'm going to
have to stab you.
Geez, easy, keep it somewhat civil...
-Forest
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Q: Why is Christmas just like a day at the office?
A: You do all of the work and the fat guy in the suit
gets all the credit.
30 Jan
30 Jan
12:10 p.m.
On Jan 29, 2008 3:57 PM, Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp(a)gjcp.net> wrote:
On Sunday 27 January 2008 23:57:27 Marek wrote:
Would be so kind and write thorough analysis which would show the
*all* of my claims as untrue or unjustified? Please GO AHEAD.
What does that matter? You mean someone should
pay me for this?
I'll pay you to shut up about the GPL...
Seriously, you don't appear to understand what you're talking about. You keep
making the same nonsensical point over and over again.
If you don't put a sock in it fairly quickly, then I'm afraid I'm going to
have to stab you.
Is this meant as a death threat?? Because if it's meant for fun, it a
very alarming example of utter primitivism.
Marek
12:50 p.m.
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 16:10:31 you wrote:
Would be so kind and write thorough analysis which
would show the
*all* of my claims as untrue or unjustified? Please GO AHEAD.
Just shut up and go away, please. Maybe you can come back and join the fun
when you've actually read and understood the GPL.
Meanwhile, those of us who do know about the GPL (on account of how we
actually release GPLed software and thus have a bit of a vested interest in
knowing what we're getting into) will continue to enjoy the freedom.
Run along now, there's a good chap.
Gordon
1:01 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:10 +0100, Marek wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 3:57 PM, Gordon JC Pearce
<gordonjcp(a)gjcp.net> wrote:
How's this one:
On Sunday 27 January 2008 23:57:27 Marek wrote:
Would be so kind and write thorough analysis which would show the
*all* of my claims as untrue or unjustified? Please GO AHEAD. What does that matter? You mean someone should
pay me for this?
I'll pay you to shut up about the GPL...
Seriously, you don't appear to understand what you're talking about. You keep
making the same nonsensical point over and over again. No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism
at all. It
implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.
After a few people pointed out how obviously and completely wrong this
is, now you're talking about how companies can, in fact, use GPL
software for commercial purposes:
If people interpreting the GPL in the woodstock sense
of way, will
eventually stop doing it, and start looking for solutions in order to
squeeze some revenue out of their open source work,
they will eventually start seeking for a different license.
So now you're saying the GPL does not prohibit commercial use. You
disagree with this, however:
Every single developer can choose
another license, seek legal advice in order to do so, or in order to
write a new one, etc. With the GPL, you don't have to deal with such
things, since it's a defacto standard.
So, to summarize:
- The GPL doesn't force commercial users to pay the developer (it
doesn't do so because that would not even remotely be a Free Software
license, but that's another discussion).
- You do not like this fact (why I don't know, since you don't develop
anything of worth, and developers who do are arguing against you on this
very point...)
- Therefore it would be nice if the GPL meant <what you want it to mean>
because then there would be only one license.
Well, I am not a lawyer, but I do know this: just because you /want/
the GPL to mean something, doesn't mean it does. You can't invent a
crazy interpretation of the GPL (seemingly not based on the actual text
of the license itself, no less) and then pretend that is what the
license says.
I'm quite sure the real, actual, lawyers who the FSF has had pour over
the GPL - literally right down to the meaning of each individual word -
know what it means more than you do. The actual interpretation of the
GPL hasn't changed in well over a decade, yours did in the past 2 days.
The point of the GPL, as you say, is that we all understand what it
says, because it's so ubiquitous (same goes for BSD, etc). You are
doing nothing but trying to destroy this common understanding by
claiming the GPL means ridiculous things it most certainly doesn't.
Please stop, or at least READ the thing before discussing it's
interpretation.
As far as the commercial use 'issues', there is plenty of information on
the FSF site and elsewhere why allowing commercial use is a good thing
for Free Software. Developers who license software under the GPL are
happy to have commercial users, as long as they contribute changes back
to the community (that's the point of the license).
You seem to have forgotten that the GPL is not about money. You are
free to go and create a license that is, but don't pretend the GPL is
something is explicitly is not.
Good enough analysis for you?
-DR-
P.S. Learn first, lecture second. Not the other way around.
7:41 p.m.
On Jan 30, 2008 6:01 PM, Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:10 +0100, Marek wrote:
and i have numerous times explained why they're wrong....
The GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism. It says, "you can
charge."
The extensive interpretation (FSF) would be, charge anything you want,
then adopted in GPLv3.
The restrictive interpretation would be, charge a fair amount(which is
something i'm inclined towards).
On Jan 29, 2008 3:57 PM, Gordon JC Pearce
<gordonjcp(a)gjcp.net> wrote:
How's this one:
On Sunday 27 January 2008 23:57:27 Marek wrote:
Would be so kind and write thorough analysis which would show the
*all* of my claims as untrue or unjustified? Please GO AHEAD. What does that matter? You mean someone should
pay me for this?
I'll pay you to shut up about the GPL...
Seriously, you don't appear to understand what you're talking about. You keep
making the same nonsensical point over and over again. No. GPL doesn't include any compensation
mechanism at all. It
implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.
After a few people pointed out how obviously and completely wrong this
is, now you're talking about how companies can, in
fact, use GPL
software for commercial purposes:
No, read on...
> If people interpreting the GPL in the woodstock sense of way, will
> eventually stop doing it, and start looking for solutions in order to
> squeeze some revenue out of their open source work,
> they will eventually start seeking for a different license.
Here i meant developers releasing source code under the GPL.
So now you're saying the GPL does not prohibit commercial use.
No, it depends, mostly it does not.
You
disagree with this, however:
> Every single developer can choose
> another license, seek legal advice in order to do so, or in order to
> write a new one, etc. With the GPL, you don't have to deal with such
> things, since it's a defacto standard.
These could be the consequences of most developers adopting a (in fact
very) restrictive interpretation of the GPL for various reasons.
So, to summarize:
- The GPL doesn't force commercial users to pay the developer (it
doesn't do so because that would not even remotely be a Free Software
license, but that's another discussion).
How so?
- You do not like this fact (why I don't know, since you don't develop
anything of worth, and developers who do are arguing against you on this
very point...)
It's their software. They either protect it or not for whatever reasons.
I'm giving free legal advice.
- Therefore it would be nice if the GPL meant <what you want it to mean>
because then there would be only one license.
Well, I am not a lawyer, but I do know this: just because you /want/
the GPL to mean something, doesn't mean it does. You can't invent a
crazy interpretation of the GPL (seemingly not based on the actual text
of the license itself, no less)
and then pretend that is what the
license says.
i've explained this in my other mail.
I'm quite sure the real, actual, lawyers who the FSF has had pour over
the GPL - literally right down to the meaning of each individual word -
know what it means more than you do.
Let me as a non-developer rephrase that:
I'm also quite sure that your code is worthless, since there are so
many developers doing the same kind of applications, that are more
talented, more skilled and more experienced and they're even more
succesful!
Quite silly, don't you think?
The actual interpretation of the
GPL hasn't changed in well over a decade, yours did in the past 2 days.
It was changing all the time.
The point of the GPL, as you say, is that we all understand what it
says, because it's so ubiquitous (same goes for BSD, etc). You are
doing nothing but trying to destroy this common understanding by
claiming the GPL means ridiculous things it most certainly doesn't.
Please stop, or at least READ the thing before discussing it's
interpretation.
Please fix your code, i haven't used your software, but it's full of
bugs and, just fix it ok?
Also silly.
As far as the commercial use 'issues', there is plenty of information on
the FSF site and elsewhere why allowing commercial use is a good thing
for Free Software.
I have commented on that already.
Developers who license software under the GPL are
happy to have commercial users, as long as they contribute changes back
to the community (that's the point of the license).
You seem to have forgotten that the GPL is not about money.
Well you seem to be happy about General Public Labour. I'm admiring
you for that. In any case it is always your decision.
You are
free to go and create a license that is, but don't pretend the GPL is
something is explicitly is not.
Good enough analysis for you?
What analysis?
P.S. Learn first, lecture second. Not the other way
around.
Sounds as a good rule. Stick to it. Go on and read my other mails again :)
Marek
27 Jan
27 Jan
7:35 p.m.
On Sunday 27 January 2008, Marek wrote:
On Jan 27, 2008 10:56 PM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
Tell ya what, Marek. Take your proposal to the FSF. Don't take the word of
people who have actually read the GPL's words for it, so get it from the
horses mouth so to speak. You obviously aren't about to believe any of us
anyway so quit harassing these good folks over it.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then
give it back to them.
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 10:23:21PM +0100, Marek wrote:
Define vast majority of the GPL camp. Give me the facts, give me the links.
Marek On Jan 27, 2008 9:40 PM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
Well, your interpretation differs greatly from that of the FSF (as well as
the vast majority of the GPL camp). I wish you luck evangelizing it. On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek
wrote:
> If so then this is FUD for you indeed. If you are a copyright holder
> then you should know how the GPL protects your work.
Agreed. But your interpretation of the GPL is one that I've certainly
never seen.
You have seen it now :)
4:45 p.m.
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek wrote:
If you are a copyright holder then you should know how
the GPL protects your
work.
I should also point out that the GPL was created to protect users, not to
protect the ownership rights of developers. Certainly the intent of the GPL is
not in line with your interpretation. If your interpretation is correct, it is
most certainly a loop-hole.
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
5:48 p.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 9:45 PM, Forest Bond <forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek wrote:
Are you serious about this??? How about not using a license at all? Having a
public domain code would protect users in the most elegant way - do whatever
you want with it.
If you are a copyright holder then you should
know how the GPL protects
your
work.
I should also point out that the GPL was created to protect users, not to
protect the ownership rights of developers. Certainly the intent of the GPL is
not in line with your interpretation. If your interpretation is correct,
it is
most certainly a loop-hole.
The GPL is about freedom to study, modify and run the code in modified and
unmodified form and to *give* it to others if you wish so. It even allows
you to charge for distribution. It's not about charity for middlesized or
big companies. What's so not comprehensable about it?
Marek
28 Jan
28 Jan
7:23 p.m.
Marek <mlf.conv(a)gmail.com> writes:
Are you serious about this??? How about not using a
license at all?
Having a public domain code would protect users in the most elegant
way - do whatever you want with it.
That wouldn't ensure that the software is free when you get it, if a
middle man can strip the freedoms away. The GPL ensures that when you
get the software, you have all the freedoms that comes with free
software. This has been mentioned before in this thread, btw.
The GPL is about keeping the software free. No matter how it reaches
you, it's still free software.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
10:35 a.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 1:11 PM, Christian Schoenebeck
<cuse(a)users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Am Sonntag, 27. Januar 2008 09:52:35 schrieb Thorsten
Wilms:
Exactly. We don't have any sadomasochistic tendencies, so we're not keeping
this restriction and all the flamewars for fun. I would appreciate if your
claim would be true Marek, but it seems the FSF does not share your
interpretation of the GPL. And if the author of the license doesn't ... you
know ... who would?
Let me explain this a bit further Christian. In law there's a term
called willenserklaerung or declaration of will.
This means, if you make sure that the above "exception" is your
intepretation of the GPLv2
and it is the intent with which you attached the GPL to your own work,
then your explanation counts, not the one from FSF.
Marek
So to
summarize that with respect to LinuxSampler, the exception
"LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that
USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL
HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED" is in fact no exception
at all, and is already covered by GPL.
We have been told that the LS team talked to the FSF people. If things
would be so easy, I'm sure it would have been resolved already.
6:12 p.m.
Let me explain this a bit further Christian. In law
there's a term
called willenserklaerung or declaration of will.
This means, if you make sure that the above "exception" is your
intepretation of the GPLv2
and it is the intent with which you attached the GPL to your own work,
then your explanation counts, not the one from FSF.
Since you're using the term "Willenserklärung" I deduct that you're a
Germany based lawyer. Especially since you're clearly referring to §133
BGB of German law.
In 2004 German judiciary was one of the first to confirm the terms of
the GPL 2. Many of your misunderstandings are covered in the opinion of
the court.
http://www.jbb.de/html/?page=news&id=32 (There's an English translation,
too).
Note how a fine distinction is drawn between distributing the software
which might occur in any way at any cost (as long as the license is kept
in tact) and offering the source code of the distributed program. Costs
for the later are limited by the actual costs of the act of transferring
the source code.
Yours sincerely,
Dennis Schulmeister
--
Dennis Schulmeister - Schifferstr. 1 - 76189 Karlsruhe - Germany
Tel: +49 721/5978883 - Mob: +49 152/01994400 - eMail: dennis(a)windows3.de
Now moved to the corridor: Hermes! (http://ncc-1701a.homelinux.net)
(mostly German)
http://www.windows3.de - http://www.denchris.de
http://www.audiominds.com - http://www.motagator.net/bands/65
<GunPG KeyID: B8382C97>
30 Jan
30 Jan
12:41 p.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 11:12 PM, Dennis Schulmeister
<linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de> wrote:
Let me explain
this a bit further Christian. In law there's a term
called willenserklaerung or declaration of will.
This means, if you make sure that the above "exception" is your
intepretation of the GPLv2
and it is the intent with which you attached the GPL to your own work,
then your explanation counts, not the one from FSF.
Since you're using the term "Willenserklärung" I deduct that you're a
Germany based lawyer. Especially since you're clearly referring to §133
BGB of German law. From what you have written, i can already judge that
you're not a lawyer.
Pretty much any civil code in Europe defines declaration of
will. And
you wouldn't even be saying that since every lawyer does understand
the term and know where to look for its definition.
In 2004 German judiciary was one of the first to confirm the terms of
the GPL 2. Many of your misunderstandings are covered in the opinion of
the court.
You have chosen a very bad example of how to demonstrate your claim
that i have "misunderstood".
http://www.jbb.de/html/?page=news&id=32 (There's an English translation,
too).
Note how a fine distinction is drawn between distributing the software
I will draw you a fine distinction between the interpretation i have
given and the examples you're giving me:
1. first of all, a court judgement in continental law system is an
unbinding source of law.
Which means, to keep it short, another court judgement might be
enterily different, since the court is not bound by former judgement.
2. the court examined the petition to the extent of its content,
meaning, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant offered binary only
code based on his computer program or parts thereof licensed under the
terms of GPL on his *website*. And this was indeed a very intelligent
move in order to defend the GPL in court, as the firmware offered on
their website for download is in fact the same firmware as the one
that is inside the hardware, so claming a breach of GPL by offering a
binary only download from the website of the hw manufacturer, you are
basically:
i) forcing the hw manufacturer to open up their firmware used in their
hardware
ii) you are directly enforcing section 3a of the GPLv2 and the fact
that the third party is a hw manufacturer is completely IRRELEVANT,
because he is obliged to release the corresponding sourcecode on his
*website*.
And hence we're again talking about distribution (this time it's
distribution from website, i.e. offering for download without offering
corresponding source code).
So what happens if the router is smart enough to pull firmware updates
from the net and thus there is nothing available on their site?
First of all it would be an entirely different case
Second of all, you tell me :)
Marek
27 Jan
27 Jan
9:10 a.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 10:52 AM, Thorsten Wilms <t_w_(a)freenet.de> wrote:
Let's put it this way, if a make a proprietary sound converter that uses
libsndfile and i charge for the converter $30
is that distribution of libsndfile under the terms of GPL? See sections 2b)
and 3a) of GPLv2.
I was under the impression that they haven't talked to their lawyers
directly from what i heard.
Marek
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 01:02 +0100, Mlf Conv wrote:
If you buy a computer with Linux preinstalled then yes.
This means that:
1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a
hardware product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a
computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus
prohibited by GPL.
I don't follow on this one. I was under the impression that it's
perfectly ok to include GPL software in hardware, but that the sources
must be provided. 2. usage of a computer program licensed under the
terms of GPL,
whether modified or not, in a software product, the intention of which
is not to distribute a computer program licensed under the terms of
GPL, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the
terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL.
Huh? So to summarize that with respect to
LinuxSampler, the exception
"LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that
USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL
HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED" is in fact no exception
at all, and is already covered by GPL.
We have been told that the LS team talked to the FSF people. If things
would be so easy, I'm sure it would have been resolved already.
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
8:19 a.m.
1. usage of a computer program licensed under the
terms of GPL in a hardware
product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer
program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL.
I don't follow you there. Why the exception you mention (selling
computers with Linux preinstalled) is indeed a exception and not the
rule?
As I see it, where it really matters, LS is Open Source and Free
Software, whatever the FSF, the OSI or anyone else says. No matter how
it is worded, the only freedom the LS authors are trying to keep from
you is the one to make a direct commercial profit of their hard work
without giving back to the community, with seems to me more than fair
enough and quite worthy of openishness and freeishness.
You have the sources, you can improve them, you can fork the project
provided you keep a compatible license... It intends to encourage the
sharing of any potential improvement of the sw more strongly than the
GPL. What's not free or open there? The only absolutely free license
is PD, every other one has some restriction or another.
This interpretation is clear from their FAQ and I can't fathom what
can be seen as misleading in it. It is clearly not GPL, but GPL-based.
So what? If GPL was The-Only-Rightful-Way there wouldn't be any other
gazillion of licenses more or less based on it. Just call it the LS
license.
However, I also don't think the (in)famous GPL exception is strictly
necessary, effective or useful. I will explain:
Let's say two imaginary companies, Amaha and Boland, decide to market
an equivalent model of hw sampler. After a market study they reach the
conclusion that to make a good enough business they must sell the hw
at 2000 GP (RPG gamers know what kind currency GP is :-) If they also
develop a custom controller software they must add 1000 GP to the
retail price.
Amaha develops both hw and sw and sells its sampler at 3000 GP. Boland
uses LS but tries to squeeze the market value and make an unfair extra
benefit out if it and sells its product at 2900 GP.
This is plain stealing, and it is what the LS guys try to prevent. I
think they are violating the plain GPL here, since they are not
charging 'reasonable' costs for distributing a GPLd software, but it
will be hard and costly to prove it in court. They can always make up
the numbers or claim that 900 GP is a rightful extra profit for the hw
if the market allows it. I don't know how effective the additional
exception can prove in this situation, but it is probably better than
nothing.
However, it will work only once. If Boland sampler is successful
enough how long will it take to Amaha to market their own LS-based
version and sell it at little more than 2000 GP?
In this later case, my interpretation is that they are in the same
situation as a PC retailer selling Linux computers, and thus are not
making an unfair profit, so this should not bother LS authors since
Amaha is giving back to the community by manufacturing and selling
cheaper products and not directly benefiting from their work.
xjadeo is a GPL sw Robin Gareus and I developed and now is included,
together with some more worthy software (linux kernel, ardour...) in a
commercial audio console. I want to believe that the market itself it
is protecting the community of being ripped off, because justice is
unfortunately different than legality and we have no means to prevent
it.
I think this is a discussion valid for the LAD list, since we all are
concerned about licensing our software and the use other people make
of it.
Luis
9:37 a.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 1:19 PM, Luis Garrido <luisgarrido(a)users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
It's the only case i can think of right now, that allows to distribute
GPLed software inside hardware for profit,
because you're making profit out of the hardware not the software.
1. usage of a
computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a
hardware
product, whether modified or not, is not a
distribution of a computer
program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL.
I don't follow you there. Why the exception you mention (selling
computers with Linux preinstalled) is indeed a exception and not the
rule?
As I see it, where it really matters, LS is Open Source and Free
Software, whatever the FSF, the OSI or anyone else says. No matter how
it is worded, the only freedom the LS authors are trying to keep from
you is the one to make a direct commercial profit of their hard work
without giving back to the community, with seems to me more than fair
enough and quite worthy of openishness and freeishness.
Everything i'm saying is that the same thing is already covered by GPL and
their exception is in fact a valid intepretation of the GPL.
Marek
9:55 a.m.
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 14:37 +0100, Marek wrote:
On Jan 27, 2008 1:19 PM, Luis Garrido
<luisgarrido(a)users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
The Tivo, several routers and other appliances ...
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
1. usage of a computer program licensed under the
terms of
GPL in a hardware
product, whether modified or not, is not a
distribution of a
computer
program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is
thus
prohibited by GPL.
I don't follow you there. Why the exception you mention
(selling
computers with Linux preinstalled) is indeed a exception and
not the
rule?
It's the only case i can think of right now, that allows to
distribute GPLed software inside hardware for profit,
because you're making profit out of the hardware not the software.
10:58 a.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 2:52 PM, Thorsten Wilms <t_w_(a)freenet.de> wrote:
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 14:37 +0100, Marek wrote:
If i were the copyright holder i would only allow it under a different
license, and charge for it.
Let's put it this way:
Can you ditch Linux installed on a computer you just bought and install a
different OS on that comuter along with applications? Yes.
Can you install a different sw on your router which uses GPLed software? No.
The thing is that in case of a router the sofware that is licensed under the
GPL represents a substantial part of the product, whereas in case of a
computer it does not.
Marek
On Jan 27, 2008 1:19 PM, Luis Garrido
<luisgarrido(a)users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
The Tivo, several routers and other appliances ... 1. usage of a computer program licensed under the
terms of
GPL in a hardware
product, whether modified or not, is not a
distribution of a
computer
program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is
thus
prohibited by GPL.
I don't follow you there. Why the exception you mention
(selling
computers with Linux preinstalled) is indeed a exception and
not the
rule?
It's the only case i can think of right now, that allows to
distribute GPLed software inside hardware for profit,
because you're making profit out of the hardware not the software.
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
11:44 a.m.
Can you install a different sw on your router which
uses GPLed
software? No.
Yes you can. That's what I did with my router. I replaced the Linux
based firmware with a community developed firmware which is based on
Linux, too. Although the manufacturer doesn't support it.
There has been a lot of hardware where GPLed firmware is a substantial
part of the product. Those include the aforementioned Internet routers
but also navigation systems, professional mixing consoles or even
synthesizers. (e.g. Yamaha's Motif XS).
As long as the manufacturer provides the source of all GPLed software
there's nothing wrong with that. Neither with GPL 2 nor GPL 3.
But your argument is not invalid at all. In deed it's the reason why the
so called Tivo clause was included into the GPL 3. It disallows
manufacturers to prevent users to replace GPLed software on the device
with other software.
This is what the FSF has to say about it
(http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html):
We update the GPL to protect its copyleft from being
undermined by
legal or technological developments. The most recent version protects
users from three recent threats:
* Tivoization: Some companies have created various different kinds of
devices that run GPLed software, and then rigged the hardware so
that they can change the software that's running, but you cannot.
If a device can run arbitrary software, it's a general-purpose
computer, and its owner should control what it does. When a device
thwarts you from doing that, we call that tivoization.
Yours sincerely,
Dennis Schulmeister
--
Dennis Schulmeister - Schifferstr. 1 - 76189 Karlsruhe - Germany
Tel: +49 721/5978883 - Mob: +49 152/01994400 - eMail: dennis(a)windows3.de
Now moved to the corridor: Hermes! (http://ncc-1701a.homelinux.net)
(mostly German)
http://www.windows3.de - http://www.denchris.de
http://www.audiominds.com - http://www.motagator.net/bands/65
<GunPG KeyID: B8382C97>
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 16:08 +0100, Alberto Botti wrote:
Il giorno dom, 27/01/2008 alle 15.58 +0100, Marek ha
scritto:
Can you install a different sw on your router which uses GPLed
software? No.
Why not (if you purchase a valid license, I mean)?
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
4:59 p.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 4:44 PM, Dennis Schulmeister <linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de>
wrote:
No. *Technically* you can. Technically you can hack any hardware available
in order to let it run custom software.
That's a big difference. Would you be able to sell a router for end-users
with no software(except for DIY freaks for which you'd have to provide
complete hw documentation so that they can hack drivers etc)? Would you be
able to sell a computer with no software installed on it? In the case of a
computer you are charging for the computer whereas in the case of a router
you are charging for the *product*.
Can you
install a different sw on your router which uses GPLed
software? No.
Yes you can. That's what I did with my router. I replaced the Linux
based firmware with a community developed firmware which is based on
Linux, too. Although the manufacturer doesn't support it.
There has been a lot of hardware where GPLed firmware is a substantial
part of the product. Those include the aforementioned Internet routers
but also navigation systems, professional mixing consoles or even
synthesizers. (e.g. Yamaha's Motif XS).
As long as the manufacturer provides the source of all GPLed software
there's nothing wrong with that. Neither with GPL 2 nor GPL 3.
That according to GPL is the entire software run inside hardware. That's
because:
1. if you use unmodified GPLed software the reasons are obvious
2. "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this License."
As the GPL doesn't differentiate between source-code level or binary-code
level, it *includes* both cases and so a separate application not capable of
functioning as a standalone application and communicating with another
licensed under the terms of GPL is a *derived* work.
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*.
2. Let's look at a real world case(the best one i could think about at the
moment), suppose you manufacture shoes that you distribute via FedEx. Who
is charging for distribution? Who is charging for the shoes? As you can
see, charging for distribution of a computer program and charging for
distribution of a computer program are 2 different things.
So in order to charge for the distribution of a computer program licensed
under the terms of GPL, the *sole purpose* would need to be -
*distribution* of that *particular computer program*, nothing else, because
you are *only* allowed to charge for distribution of a computer program. And
in case of a router, you are definitely not distributing a GPLed computer
program and charging for its distribution.
Marek
6:21 p.m.
As the GPL doesn't differentiate between
source-code level or
binary-code level, it *includes* both cases and so a separate
application not capable of functioning as a standalone application
and communicating with another licensed under the terms of GPL is a
*derived* work.
Let's assume a Linux based operating system. Any application compiled
for that system needs the Linux kernel to be present in order to run.
Without the application cannot run. But does this render the application
a derived work? Does the application necessarily need to be licensed by
the terms of the GPL because the Linux kernel is? The simple answer to
both questions is no.
Let's look at a real world case(the best one i
could think about at
the moment), suppose you manufacture shoes that you distribute via
FedEx. Who is charging for distribution? Who is charging for the
shoes? As you can see, charging for distribution of a computer program
and charging for distribution of a computer program are 2 different
things.
I would be charging for distribution. FedEx would bill me a small amount
for their service. I would charge that amount plus a little bit for
additional costs to the customer.
Yours sincerely,
Dennis Schulmeister
--
Dennis Schulmeister - Schifferstr. 1 - 76189 Karlsruhe - Germany
Tel: +49 721/5978883 - Mob: +49 152/01994400 - eMail: dennis(a)windows3.de
Now moved to the corridor: Hermes! (http://ncc-1701a.homelinux.net)
(mostly German)
http://www.windows3.de - http://www.denchris.de
http://www.audiominds.com - http://www.motagator.net/bands/65
<GunPG KeyID: B8382C97>
6:49 p.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 11:21 PM, Dennis Schulmeister
<linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de> wrote:
Do most of opensource applications run on other operating systems such
as windows and MacOSX?
And i mean, including KDE running on windows and MacOSX? Most GNOME
apps? Most web based tehcnologies? Jack? Ardour? LinuxSampler?
Do they, in combination with Linux and special Hardware form a special
product in your case?
You're nitpicking.
Who gets the money for the shoes?
Who gets the money for the distribution?
Marek
As the GPL
doesn't differentiate between source-code level or
binary-code level, it *includes* both cases and so a separate
application not capable of functioning as a standalone application
and communicating with another licensed under the terms of GPL is a
*derived* work.
Let's assume a Linux based operating system. Any application compiled
for that system needs the Linux kernel to be present in order to run.
Without the application cannot run. But does this render the application
a derived work? Let's look at a real world case(the best one
i could think about at
the moment), suppose you manufacture shoes that you distribute via
FedEx. Who is charging for distribution? Who is charging for the
shoes? As you can see, charging for distribution of a computer program
and charging for distribution of a computer program are 2 different
things.
I would be charging for distribution. FedEx would bill me a small amount
for their service. I would charge that amount plus a little bit for
additional costs to the customer.
6168
days inactive
6174
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
80 comments
20 participants
participants (20)
-
Alberto Botti -
Christian Schoenebeck -
Dave Robillard -
Dennis Schulmeister -
Esben Stien -
Forest Bond -
Gene Heskett -
Gordon JC Pearce -
Hannu Savolainen -
Jens M Andreasen -
Julien Claassen -
Krzysztof Foltman -
Luis Garrido -
Marek -
Mlf Conv
-
Patrick Shirkey -
Paul Davis -
porl sheean -
Robert Jonsson -
Thorsten Wilms