On 24/05/2020 11:59, David Kastrup wrote:
Wols Lists <[email protected]> writes:
On 24/05/20 01:08, Carl Sorensen wrote:
Actually, GNU allows charging for the software. From the Preamble to the GNU
GPL:
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that
you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and
charge for them if you wish)"
You have freedom to charge for the SERVICE of DISTRIBUTING the software
(which I said :-), not the freedom of charging for the software itself.
That is like saying I can charge for the service of distributing the
contents of a book, not for the contents themselves.
Exactly so - you are charging for the service of putting the words on
paper, and for the paper and postage etc etc.
What is the "contents themselves" without a means of dissemination, a
medium?
You are not charging for the words themselves, and more importantly, you
are not charging for work of arranging those words in that specific order!
Yes, I know I'm being pedantic, but when you're dealing with the law
pedanticism matters :-)
(GPL v2 contains some bugs, and some people actively exploit those bugs
as features ...)
A license does not contain "bugs". Pedanticism does not mean using
words with a different meaning than anybody else. It means using them
more carefully according to their agreed-upon meaning.
So you don't understand the difference between the story, and the book?
If I walk into a bookshop, the could easily be a shelf that has just one
story on it, "The Half Blood Prince" lets say. There could be three or
four different editions, and maybe 10 copies of each. BUT THERE IS ONLY
ONE STORY.
In the same vein, I can take GPL software written by other people,
create my own edition, and copy it on to CD. I can sell that CD,
charging for for the physical embodiment and my work in creating said
embodiment, but I cannot - MUST NOT - charge for the software itself.
That is basic GPL 101.
As for bugs in the GPL, are you saying that software doesn't contain
bugs? Just as software DOES contain bugs, so do legal documents,
including the GPL! And whether you call them bugs or features, I can
list at least two bugs in v2, which v3 was intended to correct.
Bug 1 - the revocation of the licence - can you cure a breach of v2 by
simply downloading another copy? PEOPLE ARGUE - WITH REASON - BOTH WAYS.
The new language in v3 makes it quite clear that you can't get round a
revocation by obtaining a new copy, but also that if you do try and
comply with the licence in good faith then it isn't revoked.
Bug 2 - if you make software available on the web as two separate
archives, one binary and one source, this triggers the binary
distribution clause of v2. So if I make the source available, and offer
a pre-compiled binary as a convenience, I'm forced to keep the source
available for three years? THAT'S NOT FAIR. So v3 makes it clear that if
*you* *choose* not to avail yourself of the source at the same time as
the binary, then it's *your* problem - you can't come back to me later
and demand the source.
These are bugs, according to the authors of the GPL, hence v3 aiming to
correct them.
Cheers,
Wol
