Mark Schonewille wrote:
> Don't forget that buying a LiveCode license, which is necessay
> to compile any open-source LC stack, might be much more expensive
> than paying for compiled open-source software.
True, and along those lines it may cost less to simply write the author
of a component you need to get permission like I'd suggested as perhaps
the simplest option.
But moreover, AFAIK (and again, I need to be clear that I'm not an
attorney and can provide no specific legal advice) there's nothing
stopping anyone who already has LiveCode from getting your GPL project,
changing a line of code in it, and redistributing the modified copy in
either source or executable form.
This is a feature of the GPL, not a bug. If you have different
requirements there are plenty of other licenses to choose from.
> Im not entirely sure how you define 'free', but your statement
> regarding free software seems flawed, since open-source software
> is not about free as in free beer but as in free speech. (I might
> have misunderstood your statement).
I've never claimed to be an able to provide authorized legal counsel on
the subject. Acknowledging this, I tried to avoid any specific
interpretation of the GPL myself, instead strongly suggesting that one
consult authorized legal counsel themselves, which can include the
creator of the work in question.
I fully recognize that the GPL is about the Four Freedoms and not about
price, but I also recognize that nearly everyone who uses the GPL also
gives the executable away for free. Most exceptions to this aren't
governed by the GPL per se, but instead are offered under a dual
licensing scheme such as that used by MySQL and others.
It may well be that most of the world is wrong on this, that there's
actually no need for dual licensing and the folks who sell MySQL are
just confused.
I only report what I see, and I see most GPL software being given away
every bit as free-as-in-beer as it is free-as-in-freedom.
Nothing prevents you from putting a price tag on freely-available
software, but nothing prevents anyone else from just going elsewhere to
get it for free.
This is widely acknowledged as one of the keys reasons FOSS projects
seek funding through services and training rather than through sale of
the software itself.
--
Kind regards,
Mark Schonewille
Economy-x-Talk
Http://economy-x-talk.com
Op 16 apr. 2011 om 17:36 heeft Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com>
het volgende geschreven:
True, and indeed there are some who make getting and using their GPL source
unnecessarily cumbersome, such as sharing the source with no make file.
But such a gambit is too easily transparent and risks alienating the very
people who are providing your components, the FOSS community. Moreover, anyone
can make a tool to obviate such a trick to make it easy to share the software.
And of course with LiveCode, turning source into an executable requires only
one click, so the number of people who might be willing to milk that cow is
much larger than those who think it's difficult to run a make file.
The point of GPL isn't to trick people into giving you free components for your
app, but to participate in an open sharing of software.
There's a reason most commercial works using GPL also use a dual license for
their commercial version, rather than expecting people to pay for something
that anyone can download, modify, and redistribute for free.
The bottom line is that if you want to participate in free software, make free
software.
If instead you just want to benefit from free software without giving anything
back to the community, read the license agreement very carefully and it may be
good to consider consulting an attorney who specializes in IP to make sure the
implications are well understood.
LGPL is a bit more flexible in allowing a free component to be used in a non-free
application, but straight GPL may not be so clear, whether "linked" or not, if
you distribute the GPL'd component as part of your app, as you noted in the article at
your site.
I'm not an attorney, so local state law prohibits me from making any specific
recommendations regarding licensing or other legal matters.
But I am a contributor to a few open source projects, so I feel fairly
confident that if a component developer chooses GPL instead of LGPL he did so
for a reason, and under the rights acknowledged by international law we should
honor their decision.
When in doubt, the best way to understand the intentions of the creator of a
work may be to simply ask him directly. If he's a free-software zealot he'll
probably make that clear, and if he's willing to make a proprietary-use license
available for reasonable terms he'll probably make that clear too. I find few
developers turn down the opportunity to make unexpected money. :)
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World
LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
