On Jan 28, 2008 3:40 AM, Forest Bond <forest@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:57:27AM +0100, Marek wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 2008 12:51 AM, Forest Bond <forest@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:19:22AM +0100, Marek wrote:
> >>> On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond <forest@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> >>>> The FSF's position is clearly stated here:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
> >>
> >>> The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about this. They talk
> >>> about charging for distribution of sw.
> >>
> >> True, but given that most commercial distributors do not deliver an invoice
> >> with separate line items for software and distribution, the practical
> >> distinction appears to be nil.
> >
> > ?
>
> When I pay $5 for a CD with software, it is not obvious to me whether I am
> paying for distribution or paying for the software itself. Thus, from the
> purchaser's perspective, the two are indistinguishable.
And he should not be dealing with this issue. Also, the problem of
compensating authors, and copyright holders from distribution fees is
another problem which has not been addressed yet, and is not addressed
by the GPL. It's quite sad to see FSF encouraging distributors to
charge whatever they want, since there is no compensation mechansim
existent.This issue has already been addressed in e.g. music
industry(performing rights organization created and controlled by
composers, songwriters and music publishers in roder to seek
compensation for performance and distribution etc.) The solution would
be Voluntary Collective Licensing.
> This makes it
> difficult, if not impossible, to place restrictions on what compensation is
> allowed.
>
> >> I suspect this is intentional, especially given the FSF's
> >> repeated use "bad wording" that is consistent with this implication.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't understand.
>
> I'm saying that the FSF is well aware of the implications of their license (that
> users can pay for GPL software), and is not simply complicit. Rather, it would
> seem that the FSF is not opposed to the selling of GPL software.
No, they always mean distribution for fee. And even if they didn't,
the GPL does, which is what counts afterall :)
>
> >>>> Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work? What is your interest in
> >>>> this?
> >>
> >>> No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use and appropriate
> >>> compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or
> >>> money, for the original copyright holders.
> >>
> Specifically, it is not clear to me who,
> if anyone, would benefit from your interpretation.
Developers?
> It seems like everyone would
> lose: users have fewer freedoms to use the software (they can't sell it),
Seriously, is Linksys a user? Or Linksys at least tries to be the most
GPL compliant company, let's pick Hartmann.
> and
> developers get less commercial interest in their software. Is that not a
> problem?
How about this:
You have 2 vendors of the same kind of software:
One offers you a limited and crippled proprietary SDK (limited time or
functionality or both) or you have to sign an NDA or whatever
or he offers an SDK only if you pay a license.
The other one is open source - you get full source code, full
functionality, unlimited time to develop
and you can even get enough time to market your product in order to
pay for separate license from your profit if the separate license
allows it.
Which one is more beneficial?
Besides the term "Commercial interest" means that the copyright
holders are also included. Why would you want commercial interest in
your software if you don't get anything for it, no money, no code.
Maybe there are motivations besides this, i dont know of any.
The interpretation doesn't touch any of these:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). (
a musician making a living with LinuxSampler)
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
(freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
(The other 3 freedoms are basically not about charging money in general)
Now that were talking about freedom, a GPL developer should have the
freedom to decide:
1. Linksys asks "Can we use your software in our hardware product for
free?" The developer:"Yes, provided that you are bound by all other
terms of GPL" ...Linksys:"mmm okay" (which would basically be another
license based on GPL with the exception that you can use software in
your sw/hw based product :)
2. legal Hartmann asks "Can we use your software in our hardware
product for free?" The developer:"No, we are issuing a separate one
time license, which costs $10000, you can modify, keep everything
proprietary etc etc" legal(!) Hartmann:"mmm okay"
This has 2 benefits:
1.The GPL developers have a means to encourage hw vendors to open
their hardware, they save money by doing that.
2. If a GPL developer chooses to ask money for his sw(literally), the
earned money can boost the development of his software, not to mention
- motivation as another side effect.
Marek
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Jan 28 08:15:03 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 28 2008 - 08:15:04 EET