Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications

Hi All,

This is not exactly a reply to Marek's message bu to this discussion in
general.

Everybody who makes any statements about GPL should read and (hopefully)
understand what GPL actually says.

 From GPLv2:

"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights."

The above says very clearly that "You can distribute copies of such
programs _for a fee_". In other words there is nothing that says you
cannot make money on selling GPLv2'd software (binaries) provided that
somebody is willing to pay.

Then:

"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,

under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"

The above says that you have to distribute the sources to everybody you
have distributed the software itself (binaries). The cost cannot be more
than the cost of the distribution media. You are not even required to
give the sources to everybody but just to the persons/companies you have
sold the software.

Best regards,

Hannu

Marek wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 6:43 PM, Dave Robillard <dave@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:05 +0000, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 16:55:19 Marek wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob you of the freedom to
>>>> run the code, study it, modify, distribute or make ascii art paintings
>>>> out of it or whatever like that?
>>>>
>>> Your interpretation robs me of the ability to use GPLed code within a
>>> commercial product. This is explicitly contrary to the terms of the GPL.
>>>
>
> No it's not contrary. And if you're a third party, yes.
>
>
>> It also imposes wishes on developers who release their software under
>> the GPL with an understanding of the implications.
>>
>> Despite what Marek says about the evils of commercial exploitation or
>> whatever, by licensing under the GPL developers /encourage/ commercial
>> use - so long as changes get contributed back to the community.
>>
>
>
> My product is a router which uses your software in an unmodified form.
> It pulls firmware directly from net. I don't offer anything for
> download. Note, this would *not* be a distribution of your software,
> this would be selling of my router.
>
> How do you solve this issue?
>
>
>> These are my wishes, and countless other developer's wishes, despite
>> what a certain non-developer (who ironically only exploits GPL software,
>> not creates it) might say.
>>
>
> How do you know i'm not using MacOSX?
>
> If these are you wishes, how about simply not taking my point of view,
> or my advice?
> How about not insulting someone who's trying to help those who are
> interested, if you are not interested?
>
>
>> People who want to make a CD full of free software and sell it, at a
>> profit, are more than welcome to do so.
>>
>
> That's distribution. Not selling software.
>
>
>> Share & enjoy, as long as you share back. Is that really so complicated
>> to understand?
>>
>
> It seems it is. Which is why you should read my emails more carefully.
>
> Marek
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Jan 31 04:15:05 2008