"The GNU General Public License is one of the most widely used software licenses - and, undoubtedly, the most misunderstood. Some of this misunderstanding comes from hostile propaganda, but some also comes from a lack of experience in licensing issues on the part of both lawyers and lay users, and the use of standard language in conventional end-user license agreements that are unthinkingly coupled with the GPL. In all cases, the confusion is frequently based on misreadings, rumors, secondhand accounts, and what is convenient to believe."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-11
Member since:
2006-06-19
One problem is people only looking at part of a requirment and thinking it applies.
Why do people keep stating that the most you can charge for source distribution is actual cost? That is in one particular circumstance only. Understanding of that part would of helped out in the recent cipherfunk mess.
Member since:2005-12-02
"Why do people keep stating that the most you can charge for source distribution is actual cost? That is in one particular circumstance only. Understanding of that part would of helped out in the recent cipherfunk mess."
From the article:
"...and section 3b, which states that source code must be provided "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution.""
Baasically you are right. The source code must be distributed at no more then the cost of distribution. This does not cover the binary distribution which you can charge as much for as you want. So in the cipherfunk thing he could have charged a fee for access to the source repositories, been perfectly legal in doing so, and this would be a non-issue. The idea is you can't make money off the source code, but since the FTP was costing him money, he could have charged. No where does it say the source has to be provided totally free of charge though.
Member since:2006-06-19
Even the article only quotes that one part and seem to imply that is the only method for satisfying source code distribution. That part only applies in a certain situation - which is when you do not provide the source with the binary and it is a written offer that conveys the actual cost provision.
The problem with cipherfunk was that he was offering the binary free of charge yet charging a fee for access to source code.
He could of pulled the free binary and been still charged the same amount for the binary and the source and been just fine. He is welcome to provide me the files and I will do exactly that.
In fact, if he was upset what he should of done was charge $5000 for the binary and $5000 for the source code. Then see if Ubuntu would of bought it! 
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2006-06-19
As long as you are charging $11,000,000,000,000,000 USD for the binary then you certainly can charge that for the source as well.
You just cant sucker someone by giving them the binary for $1 and THEN later saying the source is a billion bucks. That is the reason for the written offer and the requirement of 'actual cost' in that situation.
Edited 2006-08-31 00:50
Member since:2005-07-13
As long as you are charging $11,000,000,000,000,000 USD for the binary then you certainly can charge that for the source as well.
Er, no. Read again:
"for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution."
You'd have a hard time justifying that price as being your cost even if you built the starship Enterprise to personally beam the source code to every person between here and Rigel 7.
The requirement dates back to a pre-broadband time when source code was often photocopied and mailed, or provided on disks. The clause is there simply to ensure people don't face undue costs in providing source distribution, it's not intended to be a profit center or a deterent to requesting source.
Member since:
2006-06-01
From Wikipedia:
"Critics of the GPL often describe it as being "viral", based on the GPL terms that all derived works must in turn be licensed under the GPL. Since the definition of "derived work" is commonly interpreted to include software containing GPLed code or dynamically linking to GPLed libraries (see above), the "virus" complaint comes from the view that the GPL forces its terms onto all other software whose authors choose to add GPLed code to their own. This is part of a philosophical difference between the GPL and permissive free software licenses such as the BSD-style licenses, which put fewer restrictions on derived works. While proponents of the GPL believe that free software should ensure that its freedoms are preserved in derivative works, others believe that free software should give its users the maximum freedom to redistribute it as they wish."
Member since:2005-07-26
And here start up the "more freedom" discussions comparing GPL to BSD style licenses...
I have said this before, but it really does bear repeating: Which license do you consider to better promote the freedom of the software code? One that allows any entity to "posess" it, and to make secret and proprietary changes when they redistribute in binary-only form? Or one that forbids this "owning" of secret changes in code being re-distributed?
BSD style licenses offer much more freedom to the individuals in posession of the code, while GPL style licenses restrict the freedoms of the (re)distributer to ensure the code, and changes to it, is available to the whole community.
Is is closer to the individual versus collective freedoms discussions. Neither one is an absolute greater "right" when discussing freedoms. It is a matter of your perspective on the importance of [u]who[/u] retains the priority.
The Thief aim at making the GPl like there version of BSD
Member since:2006-03-29
Gadzooks that just makes me sick. Take your zeolosy (is that really a word?) to a soap box and leave the rest of the world to the people who want to work.
People do care in BSD camp. We want software to be adopted everywhere both in closed circles and open. Can't do that with GPL.
Member since:2006-04-20
"Gadzooks that just makes me sick. Take your zeolosy (is that really a word?) to a soap box and leave the rest of the world to the people who want to work.
People do care in BSD camp. We want software to be adopted everywhere both in closed circles and open. Can't do that with GPL."
I believe the word is "zealotry". I prefer to use the phrase "ranting incomprehensible lunatic" in reference to the chap who rave endlessly in his/her fractured, mangled English about who knows what.
The GPL is a good license for some software projects, the BSD for others, and non-free licenses suit other projects better. It really is a matter for the liceser to decide.
Member since:2005-07-06
Yes , the truth often does that to criminal too , they get sick upon hearing there sentencing ... I rather hope you get well , because unlike BSD who is dying on its own hubris , I dont wish for human using it to follow in suit and be a real zealot and having killed you for my idea.
Your right the GPL dont allow for software developper to close the software , thats why its good and BSD is really bad for Open Source and Free Software.
After 35 year of bulshit that dont work you might get a clue , that those you defend , are the same one not contributing anything back to BSD but extremely profiting from it : Apple and Microsoft are full of BSD code.
We got more driver , hardware and company and proprietary company supporting GNU/Linux then you do with all the BSD ( Even including Apple) togheter.
All this because of your license , nothing else you got is not similar or directly LGPL.
Wikipedia need an edit ,
Member since:2005-06-29
RE[2]: Wikipedia need an edit ,
Member since:2005-06-30
Wikipedia need an edit
Then what are you waiting for? I am sure the wikipedian community are going to welcome such NPOV factual masterpiece with lexical delight. Just don't forget your references, right?
Hey, I'll even give you the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Criticism
RE[2]: Wikipedia need an edit ,
Member since:
2006-01-17
1. The GPL is viral
The idea that any software that comes into contact with GPL-licensed software also becomes subject to the GPL seems to have originated with Craig Mundie, a senior vice president of Microsoft, in a speech delivered at the New York University Stern School of Business in May 2001. Since then, David Turner reports, many people have come to believe that even having GPL software on the same computer brings other software under the license. In extreme cases, Turner says, this belief has lead to bans on all GPL software at some companies.
This misunderstanding stems from section 2 of the current GPL, which states only that modified versions of GPL software must also be licensed under the GPL. However, the section clearly states that if a program "can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then the GPL does not apply to it" and that being on the same "storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." As Fontana points out, the definition of a derivative work could be clearer -- and should be in the third version of the license -- but the general principle is unmistakable.
The GPL is viral, though to a lesser extent that portrayed by microsoft. If I include a file that is under another OSI approved license into a project, the file must be made GPL, thus its viral in that way. And that is what is holding it back from cool features in OpenSolaris. If GPLv3 made an exception that it could bind with other OSI approved licenses without forcing the foreign code to be under the GPL, things would be a lot easier.
Member since:2006-06-19
Depends on if it is part of the work or not. I personally see that as a good thing. If you make it part of my GPL work then I have the right to your work the same as I gave you the right to mine. If it is not part of the actual work then it is not automagically GPL.
Member since:2005-07-06
Depends on if it is part of the work or not. I personally see that as a good thing. If you make it part of my GPL work then I have the right to your work the same as I gave you the right to mine. If it is not part of the actual work then it is not automagically GPL.
By that logic, if you take my public domain/MIT/BSD/etc.-licensed library and make it a part of your GPL work, shouldn't I have the same rights to your work as I gave you to mine?
More important is the fact that the GPL is -- by design -- incompatible with even a renamed version of itself (apart from the upgrade clause, which is subject only the FSF's whims). If one wishes to remove the attributions to RMS's puppet organization, for example, and rename the license the Free Public License (FPL), one will find that FPL code is GPL-incompatible and GPL code is FPL-incompatible to the degree that that not even object code from the two can be linked together. Indeed the GPL is the most monopolistic and viral of all possible licenses. (Thankfully the LGPL doesn't quite fall prey to this insanity.)
Member since:2006-06-19
Just means you should move to the GPL if your license isn't providing you with something the GPL does provide. Or should I say if you want something yet your license doesn;t require that and yet your license provides me something that I do not have to provide back to you. 
If you want the same rights as others taking your code then the GPL is the license for you. 
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
The GPL is compatible with any licens that is at most restrictive as itself.
Not true. It's compatible with itself and with other licenses that are less restrictive. Other licenses that that equally restrictive are not GPL-compatible.
If your FPL contained the same terms as the GPL
The terms of the GPL require the license of linked code to be called the "GPL" and attributions be made to the FSF. By changing just those names, you've changed the terms.
Maybe RMS won't take you to court over this breach of contract, but that doesn't change the fact that it is indeed a breach of contract to link "FPL" and GPL code.
Member since:2005-07-06
By that logic, the commerical Delphi license is carcinogenic, in that I'll be made to pay if I copy any of the source of the RTL or VCL into my own apps.
The fact is the vast majority of licenses require some form of renumeration for the product or service they provide. Generally this is money; in the case of the GPL the only requirement is that you release your derived software in such a way that its users can benefit from it as much as you did from the original GPLed work. This means it can be under any GPL-compatible license (not just the GPL itself).
Frankly, that's not particularly onerous. If you don't want to do that, go to the copyright holder and ask them if you could pay them a fee to release it under a proprietary license: that's perfectly okay (assuming they've been careful about copyright assignation) and allowed.
I have very little time for the ignorant ingrates who complain about how unfair the GPL is, and demand a BSD world where they can do whatever they want with other people's hard work and never contribute anything back. Good software is hard work, and the GPL acts to ensure that people don't see their hard work abused.
Edited 2006-08-30 19:53
Member since:2006-01-17
I didn't say the GPL is unfair, I said it is blocking it self from other OSI approved licenses. It is the GPL that is keeping it self walled off. The other OSI approved licensed code has obviously made its source code availible for free use. So the GPL code benefits from the other OSI licensed code. The GPL project would have complete rights to distribute all of the code. So code still remains free, its just that the files that are licensed under the other OSI approved license still live under its own restrictions.
Member since:2006-01-02
I'm not sure I understand you properly, but you can mix and match GPLd code with code released under other OSI-branded licenses, as long as those other licenses don't impose restrictions that go beyond the restrictions already imposed by the GPL(v2, v3 will allow specific exceptions) or provide a way to license the code under a GPL-compatible license.
If you look at the average large software package published by the FSF like gcc, you will find that there is a lof of software under different licenses in it, being mixed with GPLd code.
There is a simple class of software that you can't mix GPLd software with: software under a license that adds restrictions that don't exist in the GPL. That prevents mixing of GPLd code with proprietary software that has restrictions on use/distribution/modifications.
It also prevents mixing of GPL v2 licensed code with OSI-branded licenses that experiment with novel restrictions, like patent retaliation clauses. That's not an intended feature, and is being adressed in the GPLv3 drafts to some degree.
If you'd like to see GLV3 and CDDL being compatible, the GPLv3 drafting process would be the place to participate and comment.
Member since:2006-01-17
From the CDDL FAQ:
Can code licensed under the CDDL be combined with code licensed under other open source licenses?
CDDL is file-based. That means files licensed under the CDDL can be combined with files licensed under other licenses, whether open source or proprietary. However, other licenses may have different restrictions which may prevent such combination; it is your responsibility to read and recognize such restrictions.
From the GPL License:
"b) 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."
Member since:2006-02-11
Member since:
2006-08-26
Most of these comments are referring to the term copyleft [1].
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#WhatIsCopyleft
Member since:
2006-06-19
Yes I consider the BSD license to be more "free" in the sense that it is so free that someone can take it for themselves.
I consider the GPL to be more "free" in the sense that anything that is free will always remain free.
Both are free, one is free to do whatver you wish including making it unfree, the other is free and you can never make it unfree.
They really are two things, period.
Member since:2006-07-15
You can not enforce freedom to someone, because in your point of view it's the right path. So if I enforce "freedom" while cutting down some "rights", it's no freedom at all. Freedom isn't a tradeoff. To ensure freedom, you have to change peoples minds, but with the means of freedom - you can not use means of dictatorship.
But if you force them to do so, the will not act whitout any force. Companies "steal" GPL source at any time and they live with it, so the GPL is more some kind of a nemesis for opensource than a fortune.
Free or not free is the question, not some mumbo jumbo of a pseudoreligion. Licences in a free (opensource)world with more than 2-4 lines are crap.
Member since:2005-07-06
So if I enforce "freedom" while cutting down some "rights", it's no freedom at all. Freedom isn't a tradeoff.
Yet, we have thousands and thousands of pages of restrictions (called laws) even in very "free" societies.
Your simplistic definition of "freedom" is a useless one.
Member since:2005-07-06
With the BSDL, code that is free always remain free, and you can't make it unfree. Not different from the GPL.
Anybody can take GPLed code for themselves, and do whatever they want to do with it, the same way they would use BSDLed code. No difference here.
It's only when one decide to redistribute the code (in binary form) that the licences will differ : the BSDL allow you to keep your code (modifications and new code) secret (but the BSDLed code you used is still out and free), while the GPL forces you to make your own code free and available with the rest of the source.
Member since:
2005-08-02
Member since:2006-07-15
Member since:2005-07-06
" Communist dictatorship! "
Do you even know the meaning of the word you use ?
" Religios bigot "
Religious biggot ? I aint discussing my religion , but software history ...
" whatever - I am out, "
That you certainly where ...
"but people like this one are the gravediggers of opensource! "
Hopefully , Open Source is the reason why we have Apple and Microsoft so strong today. I am all 100% for Free software , because the rest dont work in reality. It gets taken over and closed.
Member since:
2005-11-13
3. You can't charge for GPL software
This is true in almost all cases. Unless you're selling something else to go along with it, such as hardware, support, clipart, etc. And in these cases, you're actually selling these other things and not the software itself.
Nobody (except for a handful of idealists) is going to pay for software that you can otherwise get for $0.
I suppose you'd have to pay for it if it was custom built for you, but then you're going to pay out the ass for it if it's anything remotely complex. Some people will say that you can band a bunch of people together and split the cost between them, but I'm not sure if this has ever been done. Maybe it has?
Edited 2006-08-31 01:11
Member since:2006-06-19
"3. You can't charge for GPL software
This is true in almost all cases..."
Actually that is false in almost all cases...
"Some people will say that you can band a bunch of people together and split the cost between them, but I'm not sure if this has ever been done. Maybe it has?"
And of course people can join together, one person purchase GPL covered software and then share between everyone and then some. That is one reason the GPL covers distribution is to make sure everyone has the freedom to make a copy for a friend.
Edited 2006-08-31 01:46
Member since:
2006-06-19
I hoped we would debate and discuss before I offered support for what I have said but it seems everyone is asleep so I will go ahead and post my supporting information to my post.
Some excerts from the GPL FAQ:
Q Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
A Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
Q Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
A Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost. Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. "
If you read that above it states quite clearly that "you can charge any fee for distributing" and that "the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary" and that is speaking specifically about downloading from a site.
It also states specifically about the only exception to what you can charge as being what is specified in regard to the written offer that must accompany a binary only release.
A good link to read - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
The GPL/FSF use of the term 'free' has never been about price at all except in regard to make sure the software remains free (as in freedom). So cost is no factor unless it somehow can be used to restrict the free (as in freedom). Okay here is a excert in case you don't want to read the whole page I linked to...
"Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (20k characters) (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.
The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for anyone to pay--such as a billion dollars--and thus pretend to release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source, to ensure the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.
.....
When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue."
As stated earlier, you can charge a billion dollars for the binary download and a billion for the source download if you wish. What you cannot do is offer the binary for less than what you offer the source for since that would be restrictive source code. Or put another way you cannot charge more for source than what you charge for the binary.
But the "actual cost" issue only comes into play in one certain circumstance and it did not apply to cipherfunk at all. Actual cost is not a issue unless you are not providing the source at the same relative time you are providing the binary.
If you are offering a download of the binary and of the source then you are accompanying the binary with the source and as such you can charge for the source download up to the amount you charge for the binary.
One misconception down......
Edited 2006-08-31 06:15
Member since:
2006-07-15
Yes my dear, Apple is full of BSD code and has helped vice versa BSD a lot (see SMP for example). Many companies do not return code, but money or ressources (like servers) or they allow some of their developers to work on *BSD full time.
>We got more driver , hardware and company and >proprietary company supporting GNU/Linux then you do >with all the BSD ( Even including Apple) togheter.
Please, I don't need the hype. Quality, not quantity! If we cut down to drivers that are really useful, there is nothing left. *BSD world works because they like Unix, Linux exists because there is a lot of hate against other systems. Don't answer, look into all these Linux forums first.
You do not need x filesystems and in the end still the best of the best in Linux is ext2/3 (look at the endless discussion about reiser3/4 for example). We don't need hacks (your huge pool of drivers for example), that just works (like in Windows), we are in need of high quality software to compete with closed-source world. I am an atheist in every direction, so please don't try to evangelize me, it's worthless.
I don't like MacOS, but it's a lot better than Linux on "Desktop", to name the child >quality first<!
Last not least, freedom is freedom, without any tradeoff. Any other thing isn't freedom, it's "freedom according to this and that...". In real freedom you have to live with some disadvantages, but it's freedom that matters, not "religious software morons", which are conquering the world with their communist attitude.
RE: The Thief aim at making the GPl like there version
Member since:
2006-07-27
Sorry, but I don't think that if *BSD would have had a GPL-license it would be that different.
Microsoft (which at least had used an *bsd IP-stack at the time of ... WfW 3.11?) would have written one from scratch instead of using it. Probably that would mean a bit more development time for Microsoft.
But would anyone have contributed instead of rewrite it completely on his own (for those that didn't contribute back)? For the time before 2000, I don't think so.
Member since:
2006-06-19
Hey now! Now my posts are buried under two pages of off topic banter. You'll do realize the article was about the GPL misunderstanding don't ya? Not the differences between the different licenses.
Now I am going to have to start over trying to dispel the biggest misunderstanding and misconception about the GPL.
Thats right I said, as long as you are charging $11,000,000,000,000,000 USD for the binary then you certainly can charge that for the source as well.
You just cant sucker someone by giving them the binary for $1 and THEN later saying the source is a billion bucks. That is the reason for the written offer and the requirement of 'actual cost' in that situation.
You can charge anything you want to distribute source as long as you are charging the same for the binary and offering both of those at the same time.
Here are the links to my superb argument that you can charge anything you want for distribution.
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15671&comment_id=157346
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15671&comment_id=157377
Edited 2006-08-31 14:47
Member since:
2006-08-27
You are indeed correct that the GPL is viral. And it is viral by deliberate design. Microsoft grossly exaggerated the viralness, but that is a separate issue.
If you take ten lines of GPL code and stick them into a ten million line code base, then the entire code base release has to be under the GPL. So there is legitimate concern over this, and companies are justified in banning the use of GPL source code and libraries. You can't have developers copying trivial snippets of code off the web for your non-GPL project.
Member since:2005-07-06
If you take ten lines of GPL code and stick them into a ten million line code base, then the entire code base release has to be under the GPL.
This myth needs to die. Taking 10 lines of code from one program and putting them in another will virtually never cause your work to become a derivative of the work from where the 10 lines came from. This is because it is nearly impossible for 10 lines of code to meet the level of expression which is required for copyright to attach. Depending on the code, you could conceivably copy hunderds of lines of code and still not run afoul of copyright.
Additionally, the degree of copyright infringment is considered by courts. 10 lines in a 10 million line code base is such a small percentage, there is next to no chance damages would be awarded. And since it is such a small amount of code, it would be trivial to remove it, or rewrite it.
That said, I still don't recommend copying someone else's code and if you take the advice of anyone on a message board instead of consulting with a lawyer, you deserve that multi-million dollar judgement against you.
Member since:
2006-06-19
repeat after me - It is okay to charge for the source code up to the amount of the binary as long as you are providing both at the same time. I can charge a billion dollars for the binary and I can charge a billion dollars for the source code also in this case.
Edited 2006-08-31 21:42
Member since:
2006-06-19
Once more - Yes Virginia you can charge for source code. A whole lot for source code if you do it correctly. It is not against the GPL. The GPL does not care about what something costs at all, unless it happens to be restrictive to what they DO care about which is fair access to the source code if you have the binary.
I offer proof in these posts...
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15671&comment_id=157346
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15671&comment_id=157377