GPL Does NOT Require A Price Of Zero
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tonyfreeman Nov 10, 2006 6:43 AM EDT |
I just read this and I believe that there was absolutly NO LAWYER present for this litigation that really understands the GPL. Now I'm questioning my understanding because these layers are probably a lot smarter than me. But it seems that the judge came up with his opinion based upon the false arguments that all GPL licensed code REQUIRES that it and future usages/modifications of the software published under the GPL be Zero price. |
| dinotrac Nov 10, 2006 6:59 AM EDT |
tony - I think the court understands better than you think. First, the descriptions of the gpl as a cooperative to use, distribute, and improve software is pretty spot-on. Second, although the phrase "GPL: fixes the price at zero" overstates the case, the GPL really does fix the price at zero. The license to freely redistribute GPL'd software has that effect. When you "buy" GPL'd software, you're not paying for the software because the software can be had for free in a zillion places. You're paying for support, to encourage developers, whatever, but you're not paying for the software. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 10, 2006 8:33 AM EDT |
Actually, only the source code has to be free, not the binaries. I could charge you a billion dollars for the binaries. That doesn't happen mostly because someone else with a kinder heart can compile the binaries and give them away. I think more companies should charge for the binaries, just a modest charge to defray cost and make a little profit. You can always compile your own, but many folks (like me) are willing to pay a small amount if we can have the convenience of an install CD to possess. Even if Photoshop were Free Software, wouldn't you pay $20-30 to have a CD? So the only thing that HAS to be free, in essense, are text files. Isn't that "all" source code is? Well, that and a billion hours of labor. 8) |
| dinotrac Nov 10, 2006 8:47 AM EDT |
rij - >I could charge you a billion dollars for the binaries No you couldn't. The GPL would not disallow you from asking somebody to pay that, but the freely available source code means that they could avoid paying the cost. That has always been the dilemma for free software companies -- to make money, you have to add a value beyond the software, one that people are willing to pay for. |
| tuxchick Nov 10, 2006 8:57 AM EDT |
no no no, you must charge a beeelyun dollars. No one will respect you if you don't sound like a genuine evil genius billionaire. |
| dinotrac Nov 10, 2006 9:06 AM EDT |
tc - So THAT's why I've never gotten any respect.... |
| dcparris Nov 10, 2006 9:12 AM EDT |
> I just read this and I believe that there was absolutly NO LAWYER present for this litigation that really understands the GPL. I don't think that was the case. He was soundly shut up several times, even after being advised/instructed to revise his claims. I think the lawyers understood fairly well. One might question the understanding of the plaintiff in question. Dino, I think that was kind of of rijel's point. Check out the GNU Project's pricing on a CD with pre-compiled binaries. You would prefer the sources and do it yourself - well, unless your budget is that big. Think about your average non-technical user. These people would rather pay for a pre-compiled binary than try to figure out how to compile it themselves. I happen to think more people should offer the sources for free while charging for the pre-compiled binaries, in similar fashion to the FSF. They might consider dropping the fees a bit though. The FSF's fees for pre-compiled binaries are _not_ cheap. That would separate the freeloaders (who won't contribute in any way) from those who can do it themselves. If I'm in a hurry or am non-technical, I can pay for the pre-compiled binaries. Otherwise, I should learn how to compile from source. :-) I actually think that's plenty fair. |
| dinotrac Nov 10, 2006 10:44 AM EDT |
rev - Yeah, you're right. Got my brain tangle up. Doesn't take much, given the relative lack of material to work with. ;0) |
| tonyfreeman Nov 10, 2006 1:55 PM EDT |
I always thought that the GPL didn't have anything to do with price ... just access to the code and freedom to change/modify the code. I do respect your conversations about the merits of being able to compile the code and distribute the program in a usable binary form for various architectures. [--- START FANTASY LAND ---- > Let's say I wrote a program and I sell it in several formats: rpm, deb, exe, and source code from my website. The source code is GPLv3 and each and every file has the GPL notice at the very top of the file. Now ... someone goes to my website and purchases the program. If they purchase the binary, they also get the source. Because the source is GPL they can then share it with his/her friends. If they are programmers and so inclined, they can take the code and contribute to it and possibly fork it by putting it up on a public website. I however will sell the program/source-code from my website ... if someone wants the source code from ME (the original author and maintainer) they will have to pay for it ... OR they can ask someone who has the source (because they purchased it from me or got it themselves from a friend who got it from a friend who got it from a friend who purchased it from me). Chances are my program is for a specialized audience. This audience will most likely request features and report bugs ... I fix the bugs and provide them and all customers with updates; however, new features will go into a new version that my target audience will have to pay for later if they want to upgrade. If; however, someone pays me to work on a new or specific feature, then I'll do that and everyone benefits as I'll treat that as a update (rather than an upgrade) and provide the update for everyone. New customers will always pay for the code on my website but benefit from bug fixes and updates. One of my customers has a really good programmer who can contribute ... they could fork my code and provide their own distribution and forget about me ... however I suspect that they would work with me. I could give their programmer access to my Subversion repository so that he/she could contribute all he/she likes. Because the customer has a programmer with access to my subversion repository and contributes to the code, they would probably not need to purchase any newer versions, because their programmer is contributing to the code and can compile and install things him/herself. I suspect that if a customer is really interested, they could hire me (the original author and maintainer) to work on features of the program for them. Otherwise, they can request features and purchase newer versions with their features as I crank them out. < ------- END FANTASY LAND ---] Anyway ... the intent of the above is to show GPL'd code is not fixed at zero price. |
| dcparris Nov 10, 2006 2:35 PM EDT |
> I always thought that the GPL didn't have anything to do with price ... just access to the code and freedom to change/modify the code. You're correct in that. It's just that Mr. Wallace chose to file a meritless lawsuit, and lost. That said, there is a provision, per the GPL FAQ, that states the developer can charge for the binaries and also for the source, but that the fee for the source must not be higher than for the binaries. No one is required to give away the source or the binaries, but you cannot charge a higher price for the source than for the binaries. That is the closest thing to discussing price, but it never goes beyond that. So, I can distribute binaries for a fee of $100, and the source code for a fee up to $100. The point is, I do not have to give away anything - I can tack on a fee for distribution, up to whatever the market will bear. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 10, 2006 3:09 PM EDT |
Remember a while back when Ciperphunk got in trouble for not releasing the source code of Ubuntu packages for free? That wasn't because of the price, it was because he gave the binaries away for free. If he had charged for the binaries (just a couple bucks, or $20 for a year's subscription) and given the source code away, he wouldn't have gotten in trouble...and he probably would have gotten more money to keep the site going. He was depending on the good graces of his peeps. One should always depend on their laziness, not their charity. Some of us give a little money (I have given $$ for subscriptions to PCLinuxOS and Mepis), but a lot of folks don't. With those two distros I get access to special servers that non-subscribers don't, and I get to support OSes that I think are great. Give them a reason to purchase the binaries or your service, don't charge a fortune, and then kick back and make a little money. Maybe not a lot (but maybe a WHOLE lot), but perhaps more than nothing...assuming you aren't a jerk toward your peeps. Warren at Mepis and Texstar at PCLOS treat their respective communities with respect, and they treat others' with respect also. And, while you might charge $100 for the source, I can turn around and give it away for free, modified or unmodified. That's another little thing that keeps prices in line. Let's face it...with a $50billion bank account, MS is just too big. No one should have that much power, and no company deserves to be that big. Unless it's a Linux-based company. 8) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!