Comments | lawgon: an interesting way to use the GPL

lawgon

an interesting way to use the GPL

Jan 12, 2011 15:01

As we all know, software is not a commodity to be bought and sold. The attempt to treat it like a commodity has caused a huge number of problems as well as colossal waste of money and programmers time. So the foss movement was started so that software can be shared freely across the world. And many licenses came into being in order to have some ( Read more... )

Comments 13

Handled by AGPLv3 ext_211996 January 13 2011, 05:51:06 UTC

The loophole in GPL for the software-as-a-service is plugged in the AGPL v3. So there's no necessity for a GPL v4 any time soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGPL

Re: Handled by AGPLv3 lawgon January 13 2011, 06:07:53 UTC

this has nothing to do with software as a service. This guy is selling software as a product - and finds GPL is better than any EULA

What's Wrong ? ext_390361 January 13 2011, 17:27:15 UTC

I do not see any problem is this model. See, You can sell one software multiple times to multiple agencies. Every agencies need customization. Even if every agencies need same software across the it is the fault of system and not GPL. GPL always says you are free to sell to any number of client. There is nothing wrong is taking huge money even. Developer has stomach. FOSS Developer can charge any number of times to any customer for same codebase too.. depending on service.. So nothing wrong. FOSS/GPL developed to give freedom to user and not public. Those who need freedom, come and take software from GPL software developer, If user are no using their freedom then it is their fault.. they are given GPL license, they can also start selling or distributing software for free-of-cost in order to stop the original developer..

Re: What's Wrong ? lawgon January 14 2011, 00:57:06 UTC

If I have a chappati and I sell it to you, you have a chappati and I do not have one. If I have software and I sell it to you, you have it and I have it too. Knowledge in general and software in particular is not a commodity to be bought and sold. It is something that can only be shared. If you are incapable of understanding this, then I am very sorry for you.

What is the actual issue? GPL doesn't prohibit selling to any no of people ext_300022 January 13 2011, 18:39:56 UTC

>> What he does is hide in a closet and develop his software ( ... )

Re: What is the actual issue? GPL doesn't prohibit selling to any no of people lawgon January 14 2011, 01:14:35 UTC

GPL does not prohibit child pornography, trafficking in women or spitting on the sidewalk - so we can do all this? There will be eternal confusion as to which came first - the chicken or the egg. But there is not even an iota of confusion on which came first - the concept that software should be free and open source or the concept of creating licenses to protect and regulate the process of open sourcing software ( ... )

Re: What is the actual issue? GPL doesn't prohibit selling to any no of people ext_300022 January 14 2011, 09:11:19 UTC

Child pornography, trafficking in women and spitting in sidewalk has nothing to do with the license. Inclusion of any such restriction would make the license less free. These things have to be handled by the law of the specific country. Let's not software license dictate terms which it is not meant to do ( ... )

Re: What is the actual issue? GPL doesn't prohibit selling to any no of people lawgon January 14 2011, 09:58:55 UTC

>> but making money by selling software as a product is disgusting.
How about you have the copyright ownership to the code you are selling? Is it still disgusting?

yes - unless you sell the copyright. Otherwise you are just selling the right to use a copy - while retaining the ownership.

>> What right does one have to sell software?
If you are the owner, you have the right. 100% rights.

not to sell the software - only to sell the copyright

I have seen many software companies in Bangalore developing proprietary software and bundling boost libraries with their software. I think they are charging for their software and not for the boost libraries. If Boost was under a strong copyleft license, they would have been forced to release the bundled boost code.

boost license is classic BSD - so what is the problem.

If I develop a Free software to sell to multiple clients, then I should not be stopped. I can distribute it in two ways ( ... )

Thread 8

Re: an interesting way to use the GPL ext_211996 January 19 2011, 05:35:49 UTC

When I see instances of people rebranding the product and selling like in the link below, I get your point clearly.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTAyNg