Re: [LAU] a spectrum analyzer that looks kick ass?

On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 17:33:46 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote :
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 10:20:28 -0600, Neil wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Marc Lavallée <marc@hacklava.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:07:06 -0500, I wrote:
> > > > For some strange reason, he decided to "release" the source as
> > > > GPL, without making it unavailable for download,
> > >
> > > Oops! I meant "available"... :-)
> >
> >
> > That's too bad, for him, too.
>
> Yesno! The developer of this software seems to have no sane reason,

Maybe he'd like to get money for the first release of the source code...

But he can't use the GPL that way, because he's already providing the
binaries at no charge. It's explained in the GPL FAQ:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee

"Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from
my distribution site?

    Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the
    program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide
    “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to
    download source may not be greater than the fee to download the
    binary.
"

So, basically, the author should stop asking money for the source code
and provide links for downloading it, or simply ask the same amount of
money to download the binaries, so those who pay could release the
binaries and the source code without fees. Or he could simply stop
pretending he's using the GPL license.

> but for example, Fons has reasons to provide his code and "relatively
> sane" reasons that his code isn't used to provide something he doesn't
> like. That's a dilemma.

New code should never be wrongly attributed.

No license allows wrong attribution. It's a fundamental principle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_%28copyright%29
All we can do is be vigilant, or hide in the forest.

Free licenses are clear, and based on traditional copyright laws, or
else there would be no such licenses, compatible with national and
international laws.

> I even disagree with Fons' and JFTR he still
> provides his source codes. Drawing a line isn't easy to do, humans
> tend to ambivalence. Did somebody talk to the coder of this particular
> software about the "real" reasons/emotions?

Licenses are logic, to avoid ambivalence.

--
Marc
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user