15 Dec
2004
15 Dec
'04
5:43 p.m.
Hi,
I suppose Richard Bown is the head of both Fervent Software and Linux Musician.
I guess he has suscribed to the LAD mailing-list. I thought the GPL-license
claimed you had the right to commercialize apps released under its terms if you
make its modified source code available to anyone. Where am I wrong?
What is the difference between this case and the "hi-jacked" Audacity versions
that used to be sold on eBay under another app name?
Cheers,
Christian
15 Dec
15 Dec
6:04 p.m.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:07:11 +0100, Christian Frisson <theremin(a)free.fr> wrote:
Hi,
I suppose Richard Bown is the head of both Fervent Software and Linux Musician.
I guess he has suscribed to the LAD mailing-list. I thought the GPL-license
claimed you had the right to commercialize apps released under its terms if you
make its modified source code available to anyone. Where am I wrong?
What is the difference between this case and the "hi-jacked" Audacity versions
that used to be sold on eBay under another app name?
Cheers,
Christian
Someday I'll actually (maybe) read the Gnu license and be able to
answer this question, but the Audacity case (IIRC) required that the
executable version come with some pointers to the source code. I think
he wasn't making it obvious to anyone that Audacity was really Open
Source. He may have also changed the name of the program so that it
really wasn't obvious.
Clearly Fervent is approaching this in a much more open way, which is great.
I just bought a machine with Linspire on it. (I quickly removed it and
now have PlanetCCRMA on it.) They have an interesting model. $49/year
and you get to use their servers to download stuff. They've collected
together a large library of Open Source and for pay apps. You can buy
stuff directly though them. It's very retail, like Wal Mart over the
net for computer software. Interesting, but not the way I wanted my
kid looking at Linux.
- Mark
6:43 p.m.
Hi,
onsdagen den 15 december 2004 20.07 skrev Christian Frisson:
Hi,
I suppose Richard Bown is the head of both Fervent Software and Linux
Musician. I guess he has suscribed to the LAD mailing-list. I thought the
GPL-license claimed you had the right to commercialize apps released under
its terms if you make its modified source code available to anyone. Where
am I wrong?
I didn't look at what they offer but legally I think the GPL requires that the
source must be available to the ones that have aquired the product. It does
not require that the source code is available to everybody.
/Robert
What is the difference between this case and the "hi-jacked" Audacity
versions that used to be sold on eBay under another app name?
Cheers,
Christian
--
http://spamatica.se/music/
6:51 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 20:07 +0100, Christian Frisson wrote:
What is the difference between this case and the
"hi-jacked" Audacity versions
that used to be sold on eBay under another app name?
Fervent Software's product is a Linux distribution. A more closer
analogy would be "What is the difference between this case and Red Hat
selling their distribution?".
GPL doesn't prohibit selling the software, though it's more probable
that the license does not prohibit selling media containing the
software. Thus, allowing Red Hat and Fervent Software (+a few
others.. :) to sell GPL software.
The "restriction" is that the source code for the program must be
available. This doesn't really apply to most distributions as the source
code is compiled as it is, so the source is found on the original
website/ftp site/etc. (Though, many distributions do provide "source"
CD/DVDs)
This "source code must be free" restriction also applies to any
modifications made to the (distributed) software. So, any patches (in
the case of eBay audacity, the name changes) must be provided with the
software or available free somewhere.
From what I know the other significant relevant
restriction in the
license is that the GPL must be included with the software and
clearly
stating that the software in question is licensed under GPL.
*Disclaimer* IANAL. The GPL is a complicated beast. There are a lot of
clauses in the license. This is not even a simplified version of the
license. This covers only a small (but significant) part of the license,
which I haven't read (I wouldn't understand lawyer-talk anyway). If you
know better, correct me. :)
Sampo
7:48 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 08:07:11 +0100, Christian Frisson wrote:
Hi,
I suppose Richard Bown is the head of both Fervent Software and Linux Musician.
I guess he has suscribed to the LAD mailing-list. I thought the GPL-license
claimed you had the right to commercialize apps released under its terms if you
make its modified source code available to anyone. Where am I wrong?
Youre not wrong AFAIK, but I dont see the problem.
What is the difference between this case and the
"hi-jacked" Audacity versions
that used to be sold on eBay under another app name?
The ebay guy was just a guy trying to make a fast buck, whereas Richard is
an active linux audio developer.
- Steve
16 Dec
16 Dec
9:39 a.m.
Last Wednesday 15 December 2004 23:48, Steve Harris was like:
Thanks for asking that question Christian. There is a world of difference,
Chris and Rich (with the help of Guillaume Laurent and several others) have
given Linux Audio one of its flagship applications - Rosegarden4. I know for
a fact that Rich hasn't had the time to start making his solo album using
that application because he's been too busy bugfixing and figuring out how to
pay the bills. No names have been changed and the integrity of GPL remains
intact. (IANAL either ;-)
It is essential that developers have enough income, either through funding or
non-aggressive marketing such as this, so that they don't need to be spending
their time doing other less exciting stuff. I don't see this as any different
from say, SuSE. If you want it free, the deal is you Do IT yourself. If you
want support, you can pay for it. [Anyhow, enough on that subject, or take it
offlist ;-]
Personally I shall continue using A/DeMuDi, however I shall recommend 'Studio
to Go' to those friends who can't handle a Debian environment and if Rich
needs a bassplayer/backing vocalist to help complete the album one would be
freely available at no charge, of course.
I think 'Studio to Go!' will persuade many musicians to try a Linux based
system who had not considered it before. This has to be a Good Thing.
cheers
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 08:07:11 +0100, Christian
Frisson wrote:
What is the
difference between this case and the "hi-jacked" Audacity
versions that used to be sold on eBay under another app name?
The ebay guy was just a guy trying to make a fast buck, whereas Richard is
an active linux audio developer. 
8:58 a.m.
On Wednesday 15 Dec 2004 19:07, Christian Frisson wrote:
I suppose Richard Bown is the head of both Fervent
Software and Linux
Musician.
Yes. He and I are the people behind both of these.
I thought the GPL-license claimed you had the right to
commercialize
apps released under its terms if you make its modified source code
available to anyone. Where am I wrong?
You're not wrong. The GPL is a bit more specific, of course, but that's
the general idea, and we certainly intend to uphold it.
We have ourselves released hundreds of thousands of lines of Linux music
software under the GPL during the last ten years, so even from a
selfish perspective we have an interest in enforcing the very license
that we choose to use for our own code.
Chris
9:46 a.m.
Re-,
I hope you didn't take my words as a raw piece of judgement. I just don't get
all the read-between-the-lines of the GPL license, because I've only browsed it
so far, not read carefully. So will you / are you compelled, under the GPL
terms, to make the source code of your distro available, for even those who
haven't bought a license, for example on a server, instead of bundled on the
recorded medium? (I'm quite happy with Fedora Core 1 / Planet CCRMA, I'm not
searching for a free sneak!)
For my future experiments, what if I want my piece of software to be released
opensource, but I don't want other people to make dirty money (all that's
remaining after sales, packaging, shipment and survival expenses) out of it:
which license should I choose? Say that this piece of software is to be
considered as a third-party of hardware devices, and I want anyone but
concurrent firms stealing that work to be happy with it! I'm on my last year of
engineering degree, nearly the time to switch to the real world! I like the
Neuros (http://open.neurosaudio.com/) way, schematics and software made public;
but I don't want to be crooked, as I have to make my living too!
Cheers,
Christian
10:19 a.m.
On Thursday 16 Dec 2004 13:43, Christian Frisson wrote:
So will you / are you compelled, under the GPL terms,
to make the
source code of your distro available, for even those who haven't
bought a license, for example on a server, instead of bundled on the
recorded medium?
Essentially yes. Either you can include the source code with the binary
distribution, or you can offer it separately. If you offer it
separately, the offer must be open to anyone -- although you may charge
the distribution cost and you have no obligation to advertise the offer
to anyone except the people you made the binary distribution to.
In the case of a server, the people making the server would be obliged
either to include the source, or to include information with the server
telling how anyone who happened to read the offer could get the source
from them.
The GPL offers a third choice (basically, tell people where else they
can get the source) but only for non-commercial distributions. I think
that's the only place where the GPL distinguishes between commercial
and non-commercial.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I have read the GPL. Corrections
welcome.
For my future experiments, what if I want my piece of
software to be
released opensource, but I don't want other people to make dirty
money (all that's remaining after sales, packaging, shipment and
survival expenses) out of it: which license should I choose?
What you describe would not be "open source" by definition.
You could use a very simple license that permitted only non-commercial
distribution. Here's an example that was enough to keep this software
out of the Fervent distribution:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/scala/#distribution
Of course, that license will also keep it out of any strictly Free
distribution such as AGNULA. (I assume AGNULA sticks to the Debian
free-software guidelines?)
Chris
7:22 p.m.
Last Thursday 16 December 2004 14:31, Chris Cannam was like:
You could use a very simple license that permitted
only non-commercial
distribution. Here's an example that was enough to keep this software
out of the Fervent distribution:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/scala/#distribution
Of course, that license will also keep it out of any strictly Free
distribution such as AGNULA. (I assume AGNULA sticks to the Debian
free-software guidelines?)
Indeed it does, and this example is a particular shame not to be able to
include. :-(
cheers
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
10:31 a.m.
For my future experiments, what if I want my piece of
software to be released
opensource, but I don't want other people to make dirty money (all that's
remaining after sales, packaging, shipment and survival expenses) out of it:
which license should I choose? Say that this piece of software is to be
considered as a third-party of hardware devices, and I want anyone but
concurrent firms stealing that work to be happy with it!
First you should carefully think about the business model you want to use - and
about your relations to those developers and users whom you might want to take
part in your project (what kind of community do you want to have arround your
software?) - and then you should have a closer look at different licenses.
For a list of existing Open Source licenses see:
http://opensource.org/licenses/
Cheers,
Andreas
7328
days inactive
7329
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
10 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Andreas Kuckartz -
Chris Cannam -
Christian Frisson -
Mark Knecht -
Robert Jonsson -
Sampo Savolainen -
Steve Harris -
tim hall