8 ms·

I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software is compared to abolishing slavery. I'm pretty sure the TSA also thin

by fleitz 13y ago

I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software is compared to abolishing slavery. I'm pretty sure the TSA also thinks its restrictions on air travel lead to greater freedom of mobility.

arca_vorago 13y ago
"I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software" No! The GPL and it's ilk are not and never have been about restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software. When are people going to get that? The source code has to be supplied. You can still charge for access to it. I could make $KILLERAPP and charge $1000 for it, and not allow it to be public, but as long as when a customer buys it, I give them access to the source, I'm still GPL compliant. Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around.
- chc 13y ago
  > Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around. You're glazing over a lot of practical issues. For example, if you charge money for a product you are distributing under the GPL, once it has been purchased once, nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no recourse. Can you think of even one GPL product that has been successful through sales of GPL licenses? Because I really can't. In practice, companies that make money from GPL software almost never make their money from selling the software.
  - arca_vorago 13y ago
    "Can you think of even one GPL product that has been successful through sales of GPL licenses? " Actually yes, I can think of a quite a few. Redhat is a good example of a huge industry built around GPL software. That really isn't the point though, and allow me to summarize your misconception. "nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no recourse." Explain to me how this applies to GPL and not the BSD, (I doubt you can) and you will see how (at least this particular) argument is flawed.
    - gaius 13y ago
      Red Hat don't sell software, they sell support contracts.
      - vacri 13y ago
        That is patently not true: This Agreement establishes a framework that will enable Red Hat to provide Software and Services to Client. “Software” means Red Hat Enterprise Linux, JBoss Enterprise Middleware and other software programs branded by Red Hat, its Affiliates and/or third parties including all modifications, additions or further enhancements delivered by Red Hat.
        mwfunk 13y ago
        You are absolutely correct, although the point still stands in the context of the discussion. They aren't making money from accepting money in exchange for GPL software (people can just grab CentOS if that's all they want), they're making money from support, services, and non-GPL software that gets bundled along with a bunch of GPL software. The discussion is about whether someone could run a business that is every bit as financially successful as a business that sells proprietary software, by asking for money for GPL software, and not having any other sources of income. Some posters seem to think this is feasible; I would disagree.
        moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Quantum Leaps does dual licencing for the QP framework and commercially licences exactly the same code that it offers under the GPL. http://www.state-machine.com/licensing/index.php#Pricing http://www.state-machine.com/licensing/index.php#Pricing
        belorn 13y ago
        It is a common method to monetize software development by the use of exclusion, and threaten ones customer with lawsuits if they don't comply. Is such abuse the most effective way to reach financially success? Maybe. Does it matter?
- mwfunk 13y ago
  "Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around." You just said that the GPL doesn't prevent people from doing anything that is allowed by the GPL, therefore the GPL doesn't prevent anything. Like, that is literally the argument you just used. Just sayin'.
- nl 13y ago
  I could make $KILLERAPP and charge $1000 for it, and not allow it to be public, but as long as when a customer buys it, I give them access to the source, I'm still GPL compliant. No you wouldn't. The GPL doesn't allow you to restrict the end user's ability to redistribute it. That "not allow it to be public" clause violates that.
betterunix 13y ago
"restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software" http://www.redhat.com/ http://www.redhat.com/ https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ https://www.facebook.com/ https://www.facebook.com/ Yup, definitely stopping people from monetizing software!

by fleitz 13y ago

arca_vorago 13y ago

"I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software" No! The GPL and it's ilk are not and never have been about restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software. When are people going to get that? The source code has to be supplied. You can still charge for access to it. I could make $KILLERAPP and charge $1000 for it, and not allow it to be public, but as long as when a customer buys it, I give them access to the source, I'm still GPL compliant. Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around.

chc 13y ago
> Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around. You're glazing over a lot of practical issues. For example, if you charge money for a product you are distributing under the GPL, once it has been purchased once, nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no recourse. Can you think of even one GPL product that has been successful through sales of GPL licenses? Because I really can't. In practice, companies that make money from GPL software almost never make their money from selling the software.
- arca_vorago 13y ago
  "Can you think of even one GPL product that has been successful through sales of GPL licenses? " Actually yes, I can think of a quite a few. Redhat is a good example of a huge industry built around GPL software. That really isn't the point though, and allow me to summarize your misconception. "nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no recourse." Explain to me how this applies to GPL and not the BSD, (I doubt you can) and you will see how (at least this particular) argument is flawed.
  - gaius 13y ago
    Red Hat don't sell software, they sell support contracts.
    - vacri 13y ago
      That is patently not true: This Agreement establishes a framework that will enable Red Hat to provide Software and Services to Client. “Software” means Red Hat Enterprise Linux, JBoss Enterprise Middleware and other software programs branded by Red Hat, its Affiliates and/or third parties including all modifications, additions or further enhancements delivered by Red Hat.
      - mwfunk 13y ago
        You are absolutely correct, although the point still stands in the context of the discussion. They aren't making money from accepting money in exchange for GPL software (people can just grab CentOS if that's all they want), they're making money from support, services, and non-GPL software that gets bundled along with a bunch of GPL software. The discussion is about whether someone could run a business that is every bit as financially successful as a business that sells proprietary software, by asking for money for GPL software, and not having any other sources of income. Some posters seem to think this is feasible; I would disagree.
        moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Quantum Leaps does dual licencing for the QP framework and commercially licences exactly the same code that it offers under the GPL. http://www.state-machine.com/licensing/index.php#Pricing http://www.state-machine.com/licensing/index.php#Pricing
        belorn 13y ago
        It is a common method to monetize software development by the use of exclusion, and threaten ones customer with lawsuits if they don't comply. Is such abuse the most effective way to reach financially success? Maybe. Does it matter?
mwfunk 13y ago
"Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around." You just said that the GPL doesn't prevent people from doing anything that is allowed by the GPL, therefore the GPL doesn't prevent anything. Like, that is literally the argument you just used. Just sayin'.
nl 13y ago
I could make $KILLERAPP and charge $1000 for it, and not allow it to be public, but as long as when a customer buys it, I give them access to the source, I'm still GPL compliant. No you wouldn't. The GPL doesn't allow you to restrict the end user's ability to redistribute it. That "not allow it to be public" clause violates that.

betterunix 13y ago

"restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software" http://www.redhat.com/ http://www.redhat.com/ https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ https://www.facebook.com/ https://www.facebook.com/ Yup, definitely stopping people from monetizing software!