6 ms·

Also by contributing to gedit (probably for free), you help this guy selling gedit on Mac: https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/57936/gedit If you read

Also by contributing to gedit (probably for free), you help this guy selling gedit on Mac: https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/57936/gedit If you read this, please don't buy gedit there, there is a free (but older) version here: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/binaries/mac/gedit/ Well, looks like selling a newer version is something that's entirely marketable, then. Maybe contribute to gedit and try to sell an even newer version for Mac? Selling free software isn't a bad thing to do.

camus2 9y ago
> Maybe contribute to gedit and try to sell an even newer version for Mac? Selling free software isn't a bad thing to do. AFAIK Gedit is GPL, at least, I'm not sure how this guy can sell this software while not violating the license at the same time.
- Moto7451 9y ago
  Presumably he could ship it with a copy of the code and license and be in compliance, right?
  - adtac 9y ago
    He doesn't have to ship it with the code. He's only obliged to give a copy on request. And you're entitled to ask, of course.
    - 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
      I think you and Moto7451 are both correct; i.e. doing either of those things would fulfill the source distribution requirement. What GPL does not allow is shipping binaries without source while honoring source code requests exclusively from your own customers. It's either providing them together to customers or providing source separately to anyone who asks.
- reubenmorais 9y ago
  There's nothing about the GPL that stops people from selling GPL licensed code, you're just required to make the code available and follow the rest of the GPL requirements, which means there's nothing you can do if one of your customers decides to share your product with the world.
  - camus2 9y ago
    > you're just required to make the code available And any modification of that code for free AFAIK.
    - jordigh 9y ago
      It depends, there are various distribution options depending on the GPL version. You can either distribute the source together at the same price, or you can offer to get the source later from a different medium charging no more than your distribution costs (e.g. cost of physical medium, server hosting costs, shipping costs). That's kind of GPLv2. In GPLv3, it talks about "equivalent access", which I think means you can also charge for the source the same price that you charged for the binary. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMon... The GPL isn't as anti-commercial as its detractors make it out to be.
      - tinus_hn 9y ago
        It means if you offer the binaries for download it is enough if you also offer the source for download. So you don't have to have a mechanism for distributing physical media.
    - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
      Only to the people you've distributed binaries to though. You don't have to release changes to anyone who asks if they never purchased the custom binary.
- qarioz 9y ago
  It's fine as long as he's providing the source.
- the_common_man 9y ago
  I have seen people complain like this often. It's like people don't understand the meaning of free software licenses. Anyone can use the code in any context as long as any changes made are available. Yes, totally no restrictions. A business can build a billion dollar company from gedit and not give the original author anything. This is how it works.
  - camus2 9y ago
    > It's like people don't understand the meaning of free software licenses. It's like people don't understand there is many different "free software licenses" as well. > A business can build a billion dollar company from gedit and not give the original author anything. A billion dollar company which sells GPL software will have to provide the entire source and its modifications to their clients and make it available as GPL so that the client can exploit it commercially without giving a single cent to that billion dollar company.
    - ivanbakel 9y ago
      True, but if your customers don't choose to do that, your business model stays intact, which is clearly what's happening here. Moreover, if you understand that this isn't a violation of the license, what were you saying in your original comment?
    - merb 9y ago
      > so that the client can exploit it commercially without giving a single cent to that billion dollar company. of course since most clients, know how to support and especially compile the source code (p.s. this barley happens)
- ksherlock 9y ago
  The FSF used to sell tapes with EMACS, GCC, etc for $200 apiece.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    Presumably their customers were getting value for money, otherwise they wouldn't have paid for it.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      In this case, perhaps, but that's not a general argument though. Ever had to pay through the roof because there was a single vendor for something, like the single supermarket in town or the only coffee vendor onboard a train? Sure, you get "value for money" as opposed to not having the thing at all. Just that value is not a binary, it's a spectrum, and you might get too little value for too much money.
      - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
        I've had buyers remorse, I bought the coffee on the train then regretted it. But that was entirely my own doing, I didn't need to buy it. Sure, if your supplier has a monopoly on the essentials of life that's a different matter, but I don't think we are anywhere near that.
        coldtea 9y ago
        I don't think "our own doing" and/or "the essentials or life" are a binary either though...
- frenchy 9y ago
  Have you read the GPL? There's absolutely nothing in it about whether or not you can charge for the product, only that you have to give (modifiable) source code to anyone you give the product to (and you can charge a nominal administrative fee, if you must).
- rhizome 9y ago
  AFAIK Gedit is GPL, at least, I'm not sure how this guy can sell this software while not violating the license at the same time. What violation?
gaius 9y ago
If you read this, please don't buy gedit there I wonder how the author of the article makes a living? It seems quite spiteful to try and undermine a fellow developer like that. Isn't anyone who works on GNOME working for Red Hat, without getting paid? They were a for-profit company last time I checked...
- parazitik 9y ago
  It seems quite spiteful to try and make money off someone else's work.
  - aoeusnth1 9y ago
    Literally everything we do as developers is multiplicative and derived off someone's work. Let me guess - you probably make money based off Linus Torvald's work? So what if someone does the labor of porting up-to-date gedit to OS X and wants to get paid for it? If it was that easy to keep it up to date, the free one would be up to date too.
    - y4mi 9y ago
      while i absolutely agree on your general premises, i also think that they should've specified that on the product page. its absolutely fine to take money to properly maintain and port a software for money. it does feel kind of scummy though if they're portraying themselves as if they're actually the sole developer of said software. and that is the vibe i got from skimming their product page.
      - sametmax 9y ago
        Do you specify the huge amount of free software you use for every stuff you do ? The licence allows it so it's ok.
- baybal2 9y ago
  > Isn't anyone who works on GNOME working for Red Hat, without getting paid? They were a for-profit company last time I checked... It used to be just at around one quarter during 2.6-2.10 days, then it jumped to above 90% when they scared off the prevalent majority of developer community during TOPAZ (3.0) train wreck. What was the name of guy who was running around with "GNOME UX" thing? Anybody remembers?
stuaxo 9y ago
Not sure about the rant about lots of plugins being written in python. He has a point about keeping compatibility - (this has not been something that has happened with gedit and plugins), but there has been a large community of python based plugins for gedit written by third parties and this can only be a good thing.

camus2 9y ago

> Maybe contribute to gedit and try to sell an even newer version for Mac? Selling free software isn't a bad thing to do. AFAIK Gedit is GPL, at least, I'm not sure how this guy can sell this software while not violating the license at the same time.

Moto7451 9y ago
Presumably he could ship it with a copy of the code and license and be in compliance, right?
- adtac 9y ago
  He doesn't have to ship it with the code. He's only obliged to give a copy on request. And you're entitled to ask, of course.
  - 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
    I think you and Moto7451 are both correct; i.e. doing either of those things would fulfill the source distribution requirement. What GPL does not allow is shipping binaries without source while honoring source code requests exclusively from your own customers. It's either providing them together to customers or providing source separately to anyone who asks.
reubenmorais 9y ago
There's nothing about the GPL that stops people from selling GPL licensed code, you're just required to make the code available and follow the rest of the GPL requirements, which means there's nothing you can do if one of your customers decides to share your product with the world.
- camus2 9y ago
  > you're just required to make the code available And any modification of that code for free AFAIK.
  - jordigh 9y ago
    It depends, there are various distribution options depending on the GPL version. You can either distribute the source together at the same price, or you can offer to get the source later from a different medium charging no more than your distribution costs (e.g. cost of physical medium, server hosting costs, shipping costs). That's kind of GPLv2. In GPLv3, it talks about "equivalent access", which I think means you can also charge for the source the same price that you charged for the binary. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMon... The GPL isn't as anti-commercial as its detractors make it out to be.
    - tinus_hn 9y ago
      It means if you offer the binaries for download it is enough if you also offer the source for download. So you don't have to have a mechanism for distributing physical media.
  - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
    Only to the people you've distributed binaries to though. You don't have to release changes to anyone who asks if they never purchased the custom binary.
qarioz 9y ago
It's fine as long as he's providing the source.
the_common_man 9y ago
I have seen people complain like this often. It's like people don't understand the meaning of free software licenses. Anyone can use the code in any context as long as any changes made are available. Yes, totally no restrictions. A business can build a billion dollar company from gedit and not give the original author anything. This is how it works.
- camus2 9y ago
  > It's like people don't understand the meaning of free software licenses. It's like people don't understand there is many different "free software licenses" as well. > A business can build a billion dollar company from gedit and not give the original author anything. A billion dollar company which sells GPL software will have to provide the entire source and its modifications to their clients and make it available as GPL so that the client can exploit it commercially without giving a single cent to that billion dollar company.
  - ivanbakel 9y ago
    True, but if your customers don't choose to do that, your business model stays intact, which is clearly what's happening here. Moreover, if you understand that this isn't a violation of the license, what were you saying in your original comment?
  - merb 9y ago
    > so that the client can exploit it commercially without giving a single cent to that billion dollar company. of course since most clients, know how to support and especially compile the source code (p.s. this barley happens)
ksherlock 9y ago
The FSF used to sell tapes with EMACS, GCC, etc for $200 apiece.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  Presumably their customers were getting value for money, otherwise they wouldn't have paid for it.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    In this case, perhaps, but that's not a general argument though. Ever had to pay through the roof because there was a single vendor for something, like the single supermarket in town or the only coffee vendor onboard a train? Sure, you get "value for money" as opposed to not having the thing at all. Just that value is not a binary, it's a spectrum, and you might get too little value for too much money.
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      I've had buyers remorse, I bought the coffee on the train then regretted it. But that was entirely my own doing, I didn't need to buy it. Sure, if your supplier has a monopoly on the essentials of life that's a different matter, but I don't think we are anywhere near that.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        I don't think "our own doing" and/or "the essentials or life" are a binary either though...
frenchy 9y ago
Have you read the GPL? There's absolutely nothing in it about whether or not you can charge for the product, only that you have to give (modifiable) source code to anyone you give the product to (and you can charge a nominal administrative fee, if you must).
rhizome 9y ago
AFAIK Gedit is GPL, at least, I'm not sure how this guy can sell this software while not violating the license at the same time. What violation?

gaius 9y ago

If you read this, please don't buy gedit there I wonder how the author of the article makes a living? It seems quite spiteful to try and undermine a fellow developer like that. Isn't anyone who works on GNOME working for Red Hat, without getting paid? They were a for-profit company last time I checked...

parazitik 9y ago
It seems quite spiteful to try and make money off someone else's work.
- aoeusnth1 9y ago
  Literally everything we do as developers is multiplicative and derived off someone's work. Let me guess - you probably make money based off Linus Torvald's work? So what if someone does the labor of porting up-to-date gedit to OS X and wants to get paid for it? If it was that easy to keep it up to date, the free one would be up to date too.
  - y4mi 9y ago
    while i absolutely agree on your general premises, i also think that they should've specified that on the product page. its absolutely fine to take money to properly maintain and port a software for money. it does feel kind of scummy though if they're portraying themselves as if they're actually the sole developer of said software. and that is the vibe i got from skimming their product page.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      Do you specify the huge amount of free software you use for every stuff you do ? The licence allows it so it's ok.
baybal2 9y ago
> Isn't anyone who works on GNOME working for Red Hat, without getting paid? They were a for-profit company last time I checked... It used to be just at around one quarter during 2.6-2.10 days, then it jumped to above 90% when they scared off the prevalent majority of developer community during TOPAZ (3.0) train wreck. What was the name of guy who was running around with "GNOME UX" thing? Anybody remembers?

stuaxo 9y ago

Not sure about the rant about lots of plugins being written in python. He has a point about keeping compatibility - (this has not been something that has happened with gedit and plugins), but there has been a large community of python based plugins for gedit written by third parties and this can only be a good thing.