3 ms·
This only makes sense for libraries, it seems, because it relies on embedding. For end-user software, I wonder if you could do the opposite, charge extra for a
by lutorm 17y ago
This only makes sense for libraries, it seems, because it relies on embedding.
For end-user software, I wonder if you could do the opposite, charge extra for a GPL version of the software? I know there would be times where I'd pay more for that.
The vendor would of course run the risk that I'd then start shrink-wrapping and selling it, so maybe you'd have to modify the license slightly to include distribution only as patches, not full source code. That way people could share code but would still need to buy initial access from the vendor.
Edit: The responses miss my point: I know it won't be copyleft / totally free software with such restrictions. But if such restrictions would convince someone to change distribution terms from shrink-wrap to partially open-source, I think many of the strongest reasons for advocating free software would be accommodated. That is, you could modify the printer driver (or whatever RMS's initial reason was).
Or if Photoshop doesn't have the functionality you want, you can pay extra to get the source and patch it. And you could even share such improvements with other users, provided they have the full source.
- tptacek 17y agoNo, you can't charge extra for a copyleft-licensed version of software. Any licensing change you made to try to do that would make you not copyleft.
- mseebach 17y agoAs I understand it, you can in fact charge for GPL software. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html What you can't do, is to refuse to provide sources and to prevent your customer to stick that source on GitHub for everyone to do whatever they like with (including selling).
- statictype 17y agoYou can charge for GPL software but as I understand it, you can't charge something extra for the privilege of a GPL'd version of your program. If you structured your licensing in such a way as to require this, it probably violates the GPL.
- lutorm 17y agoIf you are the copyright holder, you absolutely can. That's the entire point of the article. As a user, you can't change the licensing terms.
- statictype 17y agoThe article's position is in the opposite way. Charging extra for the right to use the software under a non-free license.
- lutorm 17y agoI just meant that the point of the article rests on the fact that the copyright holders can change the distribution terms whichever way they want. The "other" licenses won't be GPL, of course, but there's nothing preventing them from releasing under two licenses.
- doki_pen 17y agoIf there are any restrictions on redistribution, then it is not copyleft. A company could sell GPL licensed code but there would be nothing to stop the buyers from distributing it any way they wanted, including freely.