cash or code?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Apr 26, 2008 7:14 PM EDT |
Quoting: We love it precisely because it forces a black-and-white decision: If you're going to use my code, either contribute back code or cash (to avoid contributing code)." Mkay. |
| Steven_Rosenber Apr 26, 2008 8:48 PM EDT |
Is that what the GPL says? "Cash or code"? Lovely. Coincidentally, Matt Asay isn't just a Cnet blogger, he's also an executive for a FOSS company: http://alfresco.com/ ... not that there's anything wrong with that. |
| tuxchick Apr 26, 2008 9:00 PM EDT |
Maybe the name "Matt" does some kind of brain damage. Asay, Hartley... |
| rijelkentaurus Apr 26, 2008 9:10 PM EDT |
It's cash or code if you own the code...like QT, for instance...you can get the GPL version for free, or pony up a fee to accept it under another license that won't require you to release changes. If you code is that good, you can probably make a decent income while still supporting Free Software. That's only if you own the code, however, most people are using code someone else came up with originally, like the Linux kernel. |
| tuxchick Apr 26, 2008 9:22 PM EDT |
rijelkentaurus, you're right, but saying that the GPL says code or cash is incorrect. You can't dodge the GPL by paying license fees; as you say, that requires a different license. |
| dinotrac Apr 27, 2008 1:14 AM EDT |
TC - Matt was speaking from a developer's standpoint and he got it exactly right: Quoting: We love it precisely because it forces a black-and-white decision: If you're going to use my code, either contribute back code or cash (to avoid contributing code) ... In other words, the GPL makes the same demands of a would-be software distributor that proprietary software does: Buy a license or contribute back one's code. Note that he's talking about the choices available to a would-be distributor, not the terms of the GPL. The phrase "Buy a license" makes plain that the GPL already covering the software in question will not permit some activities, that another license must be acquired. |
| tuxchick Apr 27, 2008 12:14 PM EDT |
That's a stretch, dino, the context makes it sound like 'cash or code' are GPL conditions. |
| dinotrac Apr 27, 2008 6:44 PM EDT |
TC - I don't know how you can say that. The english is plain and clear. He is extrapolating from tne GPL, for sure. The GPL actually says contribute code or you will have no license to distribute. However, lacking a license to distribute means that you must acquire one, and, absent convincing the copyright holder to give you a license gratis, cash is how we do that. |
| tuxchick Apr 27, 2008 8:47 PM EDT |
Quoting: The GPL actually says contribute code or you will have no license to distribute. No, it doesn't. Anyone can copy, distribute, or modify GPL code without paying a dime or contributing so much as a 'hello world.' Quoting: You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium...http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html This 'code or cash' business is definitely not the terms of the GPL, and never has been, and I have no idea why anyone would think it is. Mr. Asay is very clear that he thinks the GPL is a 'code or cash' license: Quoting: In other words, the GPL makes the same demands of a would-be software distributor that proprietary software does: Buy a license or contribute back one's code. He's off his rocker, and he shouldn't be editing a book on legal issues for developers. |
| gus3 Apr 27, 2008 10:38 PM EDT |
@tc: I think you're not seeing the whole picture here. The GPL does not revoke the copyright of the original developer(s), so what it comes down to is this: A: You distribute the code in binary form, possibly with your modifications. In line with the GPL, you also provide the source code, possibly with separate patches, or with altered source files. This is the "contribute code" option. B: You contact the copyright holder(s) and negotiate other terms, so that the resulting product is not under the GPL. You obtain a license (probably for cash) to distribute a modified form their code as a binary, without providing the source code. This is the "contribute cash" option. No version of the GPL precludes this. The original developer may have transferred the copyright to someone else, but this does not revoke the rights and responsibilities of prior releases under the GPL. At the same time, the copyright holder still owns the code, and gives up no rights of that ownership in a GPL-based release. |
| dinotrac Apr 28, 2008 3:35 AM EDT |
TC - You really need to read the whole article. Context is everything: Quoting: |
| Steven_Rosenber Apr 28, 2008 11:26 AM EDT |
I can't imagine that any damn body couldn't take GPL'd code, sell it and pay or contribute nothing other than releasing the source for their project. So in a sense, they would be "contributing" code, even if they coded not a line, just by the virtue of their "selections" of pre-coded software being distributed as source and offered free (in addition to being for sale). Am I right? |
| tuxchick Apr 28, 2008 11:39 AM EDT |
gus, that's what I've been saying all along. The 'or cash' terms are not GPL. They're merely an option available to any copyright holder of any software. The GPL itself does not "makes the same demands of a would-be software distributor that proprietary software does: Buy a license or contribute back one's code." That's just daft, unless anyone can quote the relevant bits of GPL2 or 3 that say that. ps- proprietary software licenses typically aren't 'cash or code' either. They just want cash. |
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!