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

Thorsten Froehlich  wrote in message <487dbf58$1@news.povray.org>:
> And how many contributions have there been in the past five months?

Interesting contributions are rare, you can not do statistics with so few
data. But they are even rarer when the development model is closed.

I could argue that all potential contributors have been disgusted by the
three years of closed-sourceness and moved on to other projects. Alexandre,
for example.

Post a reply to this message

news: 487dc16f$1@news.povray.org...

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

Then it's part of Article 9 "Right of reproduction"

(1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention 
shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these 
works, in any manner or form.

Since the Berne convention is about literary and artistic work, it may not 
apply to software, but this is just to point out that the concept of the 
author (rather than the owner of rights) being the ultimate authority is 
well established.

G.

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran"  wrote in message <487dd848@news.povray.org>:
> Then it's part of Article 9 "Right of reproduction"

Which are patrimonial rights and not moral rights.

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> 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...

Maybe the POV-Team policy made the potential contributors go away.
Open-source developers are not manpower that you can rent for free when you
want. People have to feel implicated in the project, and may sometime be
playing with the code for months or years before doing any usefull
contribution. When the code is sometime available, sometime not, when
people are rough if you ask why POV-Ray is not GPL, then potential
contributors can't feel implicated and will go away. Usually, when I need a
feature in free software I am using, I implement it myself. It was not
possible with POV-Ray since source code was not available at the time I
needed it (in 2006-2007).

Why didn't I do it since the beta code release? Because it was too long for
me and I switched to Kerkythea (which is not precisely "open", but fits my
needs) in the meantime, after having used POV-ray for 8 years.

I am not complaining at all and am quite happy with this situation now. I
just wanted to underline that when the POV-Team repeats "3.7 will be ready
when it will be ready" because of a lack of manpower, well, they know why.

-a.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:24:44 +0200, Gilles Tran wrote:

> 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)

I would disagree with this, actually - just look at how copyright has 
been extended over the years for everyone in order to protect Mickey 
Mouse (and I'm serious about that one).  In the US, there is "implied 
copyright" which means even if the author doesn't declare a copyright, 
the author's work is covered by copyright law and they have rights to 
their creation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message