Btw, it's actually surprising how many people don't actually know that
GPL software can be sold for money. To many people that info comes as a
surprise.

  I wouldn't be surprised if at least some people have published software
under the GPL without actually knowing (nor accepting) that someone could,
for example, make a compilation CD including their software and sell it
for good profit.

  Sure, they are fools for not actually reading what they publish their
software under. However, perhaps this part of the GPL license is not
advertised enough. Everyone only hears "your software will be free,
and anyone reusing it will be forced to also publish it for free".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp  wrote in message <487d2eed@news.povray.org>:
>   Btw, it's actually surprising how many people don't actually know that
> GPL software can be sold for money. To many people that info comes as a
> surprise.

That may be true, but the FSF has never made any mystery about it.

The point is that you can hardly just sell software that can be downloaded
gratis from the web.

If the people who insist on non-commercial redistributions are worried about
unscrupulous scoundrels re-selling their code in a box to uninformed
clients, a clause insisting that anyone distributing the software must
clearly state it can be also downloaded gratis on the official web site
would do the trick just as well. And such a clause would be perfectly
compatible with any definition of libre software.

The whole point to be able to sell libre software is to be able to sell it
as part of a service. That service can be as trivial as sending a CD-ROM to
a place where broadband Internet access is not available, and the fee will
be very small. Or that service can be a complete software solution for a big
society, with customization to particular needs and maintenance contracts.

But it is very important that it is possible to do business around libre
software.

This is the absolute prerequisite for big companies to invest money in libre
software, such as paying full-time developers or providing hardware to
projects.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> wrote:
> If the people who insist on non-commercial redistributions are worried about
> unscrupulous scoundrels re-selling their code in a box to uninformed
> clients, a clause insisting that anyone distributing the software must
> clearly state it can be also downloaded gratis on the official web site
> would do the trick just as well. And such a clause would be perfectly
> compatible with any definition of libre software.

  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...)

> The whole point to be able to sell libre software is to be able to sell it
> as part of a service. That service can be as trivial as sending a CD-ROM to
> a place where broadband Internet access is not available, and the fee will
> be very small. Or that service can be a complete software solution for a big
> society, with customization to particular needs and maintenance contracts.

  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.)

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:08:17 -0400, Nicolas George wrote:

> Jim Henderson  wrote in message <487d16f1@news.povray.org>:
>> It's about the author's freedom to know where their code is being used.
> 
> It is rather about the freedom for third parties to benefit from the
> ameliorations to the code.

It's all a matter of perspective. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 16-Jul-08 0:36, Nicolas George wrote:
> andrel  wrote in message <487### [at] hotmailcom>:
>>> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
>> POV-Ray conforms to all these, *and* it does not cost money. You are 
>> leaving out the tricky parts. ;)
> 
> As far as I can read, no:
which should have been: 'As far as I can read it did leave out the 
tricky part, yes:' ;)
> 
> "Subject to the other terms of this license, the User is permitted to use
> the Software in a profit-making enterprise, provided such profit arises
> primarily from use of the Software and not from distribution of the Software
> or a work including the Software in whole or part."
> 
> The freedoom to redistribute copies is encumbered of conditions.

I don't know about you but when I help my neighbor I don't usually ask 
money for it. Indeed this precisely the tricky bit you left out. You are 
not restricted in your freedom to redistribute copies, provided you are 
not charging for it. (yes I know we use a slightly different meaning of 
freedom here, but that may be cultural)

Post a reply to this message

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

andrel  wrote in message <487### [at] hotmailcom>:
> I don't know about you but when I help my neighbor I don't usually ask 
> money for it.

Depends on what your job is.

>		Indeed this precisely the tricky bit you left out. You are 
> not restricted in your freedom to redistribute copies, provided you are 
> not charging for it.

And a prisoner is not restricted in his freedom to go wherever he wants,
provided he is not leaving his cell.

"Provided" is exactly a restriction.

Post a reply to this message

news: 487daf45@news.povray.org...
>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.

This is the traditional US point of view but other cultures have a different 
one, where the author is actually "sacred" : it's called "moral rights" and 
it's part of the Berne Convention (Article 6b).

"Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of 
the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the 
work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, 
or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be 
prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation."

The US signed it, but moral rights are still not a US tradition (the US only 
recognises moral rights for visual arts) while they are truly in force and 
considered normal in other countries. For instance, that's the reason why I 
don't put anything in the POV-Ray object collection: the chosen licence 
(LGPL) does not recognise any moral rights at all.

G.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas George wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich  wrote in message <487cac23@news.povray.org>:
>> Except that it is available.
> 
> It is _now_. Alexandre's post was in the past tense.
> 
> The source code for the beta release, as far as I can see, has been
> available since 2008-02-18, which is somewhat about three years after the
> first binaries.

And how many contributions have there been in the past five months? - Ah, 
yes, thousands and I missed them all :-(

So I can show that there have been no major contributions in five months, 
and you can show nothing about the past three years. My argument is based on 
facts, your argument is pure speculation. - Hmm, I guess I have the better 
argument after all. And believe me, I would be quite a bit happier if I 
didn't have such a strong argument...

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran"  wrote in message <487dbcd4@news.povray.org>:
> This is the traditional US point of view but other cultures have a different 
> one, where the author is actually "sacred" : it's called "moral rights" and 
> it's part of the Berne Convention (Article 6b).

You are right. But as shown in the quoted text, the moral rights do not
allow to restrict the diffusion of the work.

Post a reply to this message