211–220 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Requiring another work for meaning, without actually including any of that work, is not enough to make copyright kick in as far as I know.
Then any source patch would fall outside of licensing. It's clearly a derivative work, as described.
Some don't.
To use Ghostscript for free, Hancom would have to adhere to its open-source license, the GNU General Public License (GPL). The GNU GPL requires that when you use GPL-licensed software to make some other software, the resulting software also has to be open-sourced with the same license if it’s released to the public. That means Hancom would have to open-source its entire suite of apps. Alternatively, Hancom could pay…
Question: Is that what Stallman intended to accomplish with the GPL? Pay a fee for GPL source code and bypass the GPL? (I apologize for my ignorance here.) It seems like "reciprocity" has an even worse outcome than BSD source code. The origin of the source code can be completely hidden from the user. Do users deserve to know at least that the original source code was freely available ? What happens when users discove…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Question: Is that what Stallman intended to accomplish with the GPL? Pay a fee for GPL source code and bypass the GPL? (I apologize for my ignorance here.) It seems like "reciprocity" has an even worse outcome than BSD source code. The origin of the source code can be completely hidden from the user. Do users deserve to know at least that the original source code was freely available ? What happens when users discove…
I view the GPL as a form of DRM. It may be DRM for a good cause but it is still DRM. DRM is about control and I don't think that imposing controls is ultimately compatible with the notion of "free software". I get the arguments in favor it but am not convinced.
The GPL does place nontechnical restrictions on developers, but those restrictions exist to ensure that bad actors can't add new restrictions to users.
But seriously, "GPL is DRM" makes no sense. Aside from the fact that DRM and the GPL are completely different classes of things, they also have completely contradictory philosophies and are applied and act in completely contradictory ways. That's just FUD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Question: Is that what Stallman intended to accomplish with the GPL? Pay a fee for GPL source code and bypass the GPL? (I apologize for my ignorance here.) It seems like "reciprocity" has an even worse outcome than BSD source code. The origin of the source code can be completely hidden from the user. Do users deserve to know at least that the original source code was freely available ? What happens when users discove…
> Stupid question: If someone fixes or adds something valuable to GPL source code and wants to charge for it, then why not just charge for the patch or the additional code? Nothing stops anyone from charging for the GPL code in the first place.
But the idea I had in mind with this question was that there is often an initial free source of high value code and then someone may add an addtional amount of their own code that is by comparison far less valuable.
The end user of the commercial product if it is closed source may not be able to see the extent of the contribution of that free portion to the value of the product as a whole.
For lack of a better hypothetical, imagine a product that is a combination of 1. GPL licensed command line executable that anyone can download and compile for no charge and 2. a GUI "skin" written by someone who has no copyright in the command line executable.
The author of the skin, let's call him "the entrepreneur", wants to charge end users.
The entrepreneur packages his skin together with the GPL licensed command line executable as a closed source commercial "product".
As you state, "Nothing stops anyone from charging for the GPL code in the first place."
But in this case, as is common among GPL-licensed programs, the author who wrote the command line executable never charged for it.
The problem I see with this situation is that because the product is closed source, the end user may not be able to determine the extent of "the entrepreneur's" work.
For example, his contribution to the "product" may be quite small in comparison to the work of the original author. That is, the core of the product, the most important bits, may comprise the freely available GPL source code, available to anyone for no charge.
This is not a situation that I expect anyone else to care about. But as an end user, if I were faced with paying for a commercial software product, I would want to know about the entrepreneur's use GPL source code that I could obtain elsewhere for free and the extent of the entrepreneur's "contribution" in relation to the original author.
Returning to my original stupid question, why does the entrepreneur not sell his skin separately from the command line executable. It is a rhetorical question. (Commenters tried to answer it anyway.)
Assuming the command line executable is a well-written, highly valuable program and an end user does not know about its existance, the entrepreneur's product may look quite valuable. The entrepreneur may be piggybacking on the value of the GPL source code but concealing this by keeping the source code secret.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then any source patch would fall outside of licensing. It's clearly a derivative work, as described.
Some source patches include significant elements of what they apply to. Some don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"EULAs on a book" is basically the practice that the First Sale Doctrine is meant to curb. To wit: "This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise disposed of without the publisher's consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published." from https://books.google.com/books?id=v-yrLmQNRvsC&pg=PR4 , but there are many o…
I understand why they don't like it but 1) Books go out of print and they don't have anything to sell anymore. 2) A replacement book could cost more than a new cover. I bet libraries would be happy to return the old worn book and get a pristine one, possibly of the same edition, for the cost of fixing the old one. That doesn't happen, maybe it's even an unprofitable business for publishers, so long live to the First…
Right. The language above was an attempt to force libraries to buy a brand new copy anyway, and make reselling used books more difficult. In case it isn't obvious, replacing covers is much more common, and gives excellent results, with hardcovers (look up book rebinding).
Also related is the practice of retailers "stripping" a paperback book of it's cover rather than returning it to the publisher. Publishers would therefore like it to be illegal to buy and sell books without covers, or with replacement covers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripped_book
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the "outcome" to which I was referring was in fact the effect of dual-licensing. With respect to the book chapter, as I interpret it, reciprocity includes asking for the licensee to open source their work. But I leave this to the experts to interpret definitively. Assuming I am not misunderstanding, if the licensee "reciprocates", then there is no closed source and the "problem" I am alluding to goes away. Becau…
You cannot have GPL-licensed code in closed-source code. It's a violation of the license so the code ceases to be GPL-licensed and becomes unlicensed. If you distribute that code, in source or binary form, you can get sued by the copyright holders which is what this case is about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is correct - you not only must include the source code for your binary, you also must include it under the same terms as the original source code.
So if someone just happens to distribute the source code for Hancom Office before this is resolved in the courts, would he or she be in the free and clear?
This happened a few weeks ago. But it's just a ruling on a preliminary injunction motion. That is, it's not even a final decision of a court. So while interesting, it's incredibly early in the process. The same court could issue a ruling going the exact opposite way after trial. As someone else wrote, basically a court rule that a plaintiff alleged enough facts that, if those facts were true, would give rise to an en…
> This happened a few weeks ago. But it's just a ruling on a preliminary injunction motion. Is "preliminary injunction" the right terminology here? It sounds like it was a motion for dismissal. Anyway, it's appalling how often the press confuses pre-trial motions like this with substantive rulings on the issues of the case. ...and it is also, sadly, no surprise that they also think that this sets precedent. Why is it…
All courts set precedent. That's the basic premise of the common law. Courts in NZ reference Australian decisions, courts in Australia reference NZ decisions.
There's a difference between precedent and binding precedent.