Open source licensing being questioned by anti-copyrighttypes
in [Java Programming]
|
Prev: XWSSecurity and WebSphere
Next: Enum Idiom Question
From: David Lamb on 28 May 2010 16:09 On 28/05/2010 4:19 AM, Nigel Wade wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:21:16 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote: >> The main difference between BSD and GPL is that BSD doesn't preclude use >> in for-profit software. If that's your intent, it's a good choice. > > The GPL makes no such exclusion. I presume that you've been reading the > FUD rather than the GPL. > > This comes direct from the GPL FAQ: > > "If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, > am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then > distribute and sell that new program commercially? > > You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, > but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must > make the source code available to the users of the program as described > in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as > described in the GPL. > > These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered > code you received in a program of your own. " I'd really like to understand the various FOSS licence issues better, so please forgive the question if it's a diversion: Does this quote mean that, although one can legally sell modified code, there is little incentive for anyone to pay for it, since they can obtain, use, modify, and redistribute for free?
From: Lew on 28 May 2010 17:11 Nigel Wade wrote: >> This comes direct from the GPL FAQ: >> >> "If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, >> am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then >> distribute and sell that new program commercially? >> >> You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, >> but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must >> make the source code available to the users of the program as described >> in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as >> described in the GPL. >> >> These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered >> code you received in a program of your own. " David Lamb wrote: > Does this quote mean that, although one can legally sell modified code, > there is little incentive for anyone to pay for it, since they can > obtain, use, modify, and redistribute for free? The quote does not mean that. You might choose to conclude that based on other data, but it's not what the quote means. The tendency to blame the license for the conclusions that one draws about it causes misunderstanding and misuse or abuse of open-source licenses and FUD among potential users of the software they cover. The GPL as cited only says you have to provide the source code. It does not preclude incentives to pay for it. For example, source code is really only useful if you have a developer handy. Users that don't have one handy will have to pay to have one handy in order to use the source code. They can pay a third party to provide the GPLed code and make it work, or they can hire an employee to do so. Either way, they're paying for the software. And why would they redistribute it? It's open source; there's no onus on them to distribute what any user can obtain on their own. So that provides no disincentive to purchase the software. Sure, they can obtain it for free, and theoretically even use it for free. But what if they want more than the minimum functionality? Someone still has to apply expertise to the use of the software, expertise that must be purchased regardless of licensing fees. Modify for free is no disincentive either - who wants to modify the code rather than just use it without trouble? So the only disincentives are the cost to obtain the software, which is always rolled into the purchase cost even in non-open-source software, and - and - that's it. The cost to use the software is roughly the same, and most customers have no interest in the source code at all. Being the one to provide what does interest them is where you make money. GPL does not stand in the way of that at all. -- Lew
From: Joshua Cranmer on 28 May 2010 18:11 On 05/28/2010 02:21 AM, Mike Schilling wrote: > The main difference between BSD and GPL is that BSD doesn't preclude use in > for-profit software. If that's your intent, it's a good choice. A better way of phrasing it is that GPL code begets only GPL code, whereas BSD code can be used more widely. GPL is actually rather crappy for many libraries, since you can't use GPL code in many major open source projects. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Arne Vajhøj on 28 May 2010 20:13 On 28-05-2010 02:21, Mike Schilling wrote: > ClassCastException wrote: >> Upshot: I think I'll use BSD-type licenses for now. They're compatible >> with almost anything, license-wise, including the GPL and Clojure's >> license, and have a decent level of respect in the open source world. >> I don't think I can go far wrong if I use the two-clause BSD license >> on my code. > > The main difference between BSD and GPL is that BSD doesn't preclude use in > for-profit software. If that's your intent, it's a good choice. The GPL license does not preclude that. But the terms of the GPL license combined with cost minimizing users makes certain business models not working. Arne
From: Arne Vajhøj on 28 May 2010 20:16
On 28-05-2010 16:09, David Lamb wrote: > On 28/05/2010 4:19 AM, Nigel Wade wrote: >> On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:21:16 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote: >>> The main difference between BSD and GPL is that BSD doesn't preclude use >>> in for-profit software. If that's your intent, it's a good choice. >> >> The GPL makes no such exclusion. I presume that you've been reading the >> FUD rather than the GPL. >> >> This comes direct from the GPL FAQ: >> >> "If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, >> am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then >> distribute and sell that new program commercially? >> >> You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, >> but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must >> make the source code available to the users of the program as described >> in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as >> described in the GPL. >> >> These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered >> code you received in a program of your own. " > > I'd really like to understand the various FOSS licence issues better, so > please forgive the question if it's a diversion: > > Does this quote mean that, although one can legally sell modified code, > there is little incentive for anyone to pay for it, since they can > obtain, use, modify, and redistribute for free? For a traditional software sale model "here is a CD with the software and a valid license key - if you want support then you have to pay extra", then YES. There are several companies selling GPL software and making money using different business models. Arne |