Warp  wrote in message <487d4155@news.povray.org>:
>   Actually I think the GPL doesn't demand that the source code must be
> distributed publicly (eg. on the internet) nor separately from the
> program itself. It just demands that the source code must be provided
> if requested. In other words, the GPL doesn't require you to set up a
> free service which provides the source code of the program (because such
> a requirement would be questionable, as it might mean someone would have to
> spend money on buying website space or such).
> 
>   The easiest way to comply with this is to put the source code in the
> compilation CD along with the program. Basically this means that if you
> want the source code, you'll have to pay for the CD. (Of course this
> doesn't stop someone who has bought the CD from distributing the source
> code in their website, but still...)

That is perfectly right.

>   What I'm worried about is that some people have got the wrong idea about
> GPL and do not realize that their software could actually be used by
> someone to make big profit, which might not have been the intention of
> the original author.
>   (Sure, the nature of the GPL makes it pretty hard to make big profit
> in the long run, but it's still theoretically possible.)

There are people who cut themselves while peeling vegetables: that is not a
reason to blame knifes, is it? As long as no one significant tries to
confuse people, you can not blame the FSF if stupid authors use it without
being sure they understand correctly.

And, by the way, I do not consider the wish of the original author as
something sacred. The society chose to grant the authors exclusive rights on
their work because it is supposed to help them to earn a living from it,
thus allowing to produce more work for the greater good of the whole human
species. But there is no fundamental right to restrict the diffusion of a
work, just a compromise between unrestricted distribution and author
remuneration.

>   I still have the opinion that even if you restrict your software
> license so that it cannot be distributed for money, it can still be
> called free.

I have the opinion that you should stop writing "free" altogether in this
thread, and always use either "gratis" or "libre". Let me rephrase your
sentence:

#   I still have the opinion that even if you restrict your software
# license so that it cannot be distributed for money, it can still be
# called GRATIS.

Well yes, of course.

#   I still have the opinion that even if you restrict your software
# license so that it cannot be distributed for money, it can still be
# called LIBRE.

I do not think so.

If I am not allowed to put the software on a CD, write an article explaining
how it works in a magazine and sell the whole, then I do not consider this
software libre.

If I am not allowed to quote significant parts of the source code (beyond
fair use) in a book studying how it works and sell the book, I would not
consider this software libre.

A lot of people see with distaste the idea of someone making money with
their works because they think of greedy big companies. But unless they
happen to be writing the next biggest hit since the Linux kernel, that is
not at all what it is about. First, they need to remember that if they chose
to put the software on their page web, nobody can prevent people from
downloading it gratis. And secondly, for most software, the only commercial
use that will ever happen is to be one among hundreds of similar programs on
a CD sold along with a book or shipped to areas without broadband network
access. Someone trying to forbid that is just stupid.

Post a reply to this message