GPL question, can open source code can be used to prop. platform?

Abdullah Ramazanoglu <abdullah@ramazanoglu.tr> writes:

]Sun, 25 Jul 2004 00:25:52 -0400 tarihinde, Lew Pitcher dedi ki:

]> - From the phrase "any third party" in clause 3b, it seems to me that the GPL
]> does indeed require that you make the source code available to someone other
]> than your direct customers. This seems explicitly to cover the condition where
]> your customer redistributes your GPLed code.

]The GPL-FAQ also confirms this.
]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid

Actually this is not clear. The offer must be valid for those third
parties if they receive the binary. HOwever, in the case that the FAQ
discusses if some third parties hears that you have developed the code for
your company, you do not have to send them the source code.

"
Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure
agreement?
Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and
agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is
permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed
under an NDA.

You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but
agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this
case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under
any additional restrictions.

The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version.
In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that
right, but does have the right.
"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

In comp.os.linux.networking Bill Unruh <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> suggested:
> huge@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) writes:

> ]General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> writes:
> ]>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:01:46 -0700, Santa wrote:
> ]>
> ]>> Well, if I burned binary into firewall box (into flash), if I sell
> ]>> that box, do I have to provide the source to the customer?. These
> ]>> boxes if I sell in every electronic shop, how can I provide source
> ]>> code?.
> ]>
> ]>You must provide the source code but it doesn't have to be in the box.
> ]>Putting the source code on your website is sufficient.
> ]>

> ]Except that the FSF think it isn't.

> Where do they state this thought? What do they think is sufficient? Anyway,
> it is by now up to the courts, if anyone wants to take the case to court.
> Their thoughts are irrelevant except as encoded in the GPL.

Seems to be answered in the gpl FAQ:

"I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I
provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?

You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a
physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer
people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in
addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source
is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.

When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the
source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get
the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job.
But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users
are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means
you must be prepared to send it to them by post.

If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will
choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship
one. But you cannot assume that.

Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary
in the first place."

[http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq....rceOnInternet]

Sounds pretty clear.

Recently a German court ruled in favor of GPL, wasn't a
primary/important court, so it doesn't mean much, but a sign.;)

Best regards

--
Michael Heiming (GPG-Key ID: 0xEDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBBuE+AkPEju3Se5QRAghyAJ42V5TheMKnPqUFN3+IE1 JBByX6fgCghvHD
Simgv+J3iiQE937U2ztnuP0=
=MKEr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> writes:

]-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
]Hash: SHA1
]NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

]In comp.os.linux.networking Bill Unruh <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> suggested:
]> huge@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) writes:

]> ]General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> writes:
]> ]>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:01:46 -0700, Santa wrote:
]> ]>
]> ]>> Well, if I burned binary into firewall box (into flash), if I sell
]> ]>> that box, do I have to provide the source to the customer?. These
]> ]>> boxes if I sell in every electronic shop, how can I provide source
]> ]>> code?.
]> ]>
]> ]>You must provide the source code but it doesn't have to be in the box.
]> ]>Putting the source code on your website is sufficient.
]> ]>

]> ]Except that the FSF think it isn't.

]> Where do they state this thought? What do they think is sufficient? Anyway,
]> it is by now up to the courts, if anyone wants to take the case to court.
]> Their thoughts are irrelevant except as encoded in the GPL.

]Seems to be answered in the gpl FAQ:

]"I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I
]provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?

]You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a
]physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer
]people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in
]addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source
]is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.

I am sorry but nowhere in the GPL does it state "You are supposed to
provide source code by mail-order." What is says is
"on a medium customarily used for software interchange". FTP, html, etc are
"customarily used for software interchange." The internet is a medium.

I think the above section of the FAQ may have been written in 1990, when
ftp or http were not as ubiquitous as now. Perhaps I should send anyone who
asks for the source code, it on 8 inch floppies. That was after all a
medium "customarily used for software interchange" in 1980.





]When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the
]source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get
]the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job.
]But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users
]are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means
]you must be prepared to send it to them by post.


Nuts. What if the person has no floppies or cdreaders?
" a medium customarily used for software interchange" does not mean
"a medium specified by the customer".


]If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will
]choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship
]one. But you cannot assume that.


]Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary
]in the first place."

Yes, by ftp or http.


][http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq....rceOnInternet]

]Sounds pretty clear.

]Recently a German court ruled in favor of GPL, wasn't a
]primary/important court, so it doesn't mean much, but a sign.;)

I do not dispute the validity of the GPL. I dispute the validity of the
FAQ's interpretation of the GPL.

(comments interspersed, but didn't know what to cut)

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:02:43 +0000, Bill Unruh wrote:
> Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> writes:
> ]-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> ]Hash: SHA1
> ]NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> ]In comp.os.linux.networking Bill Unruh <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> suggested:
> ]> huge@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) writes:
>
> ]> ]General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> writes:
> ]> ]>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:01:46 -0700, Santa wrote:
> ]> ]>
> ]> ]>> Well, if I burned binary into firewall box (into flash), if I sell
> ]> ]>> that box, do I have to provide the source to the customer?. These
> ]> ]>> boxes if I sell in every electronic shop, how can I provide source
> ]> ]>> code?.
> ]> ]>
> ]> ]>You must provide the source code but it doesn't have to be in the box.
> ]> ]>Putting the source code on your website is sufficient.
> ]> ]>
> ]> ]Except that the FSF think it isn't.
>
> ]> Where do they state this thought? What do they think is sufficient? Anyway,
> ]> it is by now up to the courts, if anyone wants to take the case to court.
> ]> Their thoughts are irrelevant except as encoded in the GPL.
>
> ]Seems to be answered in the gpl FAQ:
>
> ]"I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I
> ]provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?
>
> ]You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a
> ]physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer
> ]people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in
> ]addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source
> ]is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
>
> I am sorry but nowhere in the GPL does it state "You are supposed to
> provide source code by mail-order." What is says is
> "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". FTP, html, etc are
> "customarily used for software interchange." The internet is a medium.
>
> I think the above section of the FAQ may have been written in 1990, when
> ftp or http were not as ubiquitous as now. Perhaps I should send anyone who
> asks for the source code, it on 8 inch floppies. That was after all a
> medium "customarily used for software interchange" in 1980.

Why look on it as a problem? It could be an opportunity? Roll the source
code off onto a CD-R, mail it to the customer, and bill him for your time.
The GPL specifically allows for reasonable packaging and shipping costs.
You presumably can't charge $1000/hour, but charge car mechanic rates? If
you get a lot of orders, you can hire a programmer/clerk to do it.

Hell if you don't want the job, I'll do it!


> ]When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the
> ]source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get
> ]the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job.
> ]But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users
> ]are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means
> ]you must be prepared to send it to them by post.
>
> Nuts. What if the person has no floppies or cdreaders?
> " a medium customarily used for software interchange" does not mean
> "a medium specified by the customer".

You're again thinking in terms of a problem, not an opportunity. What do
you care if the customer is willing to pay you to roll the source code
off onto a stack of floppies? You can advise the customer about the best
methods, but if he really wants it carved in granite, hire a stonemason!


> ]If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will
> ]choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship
> ]one. But you cannot assume that.
>
> ]Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary
> ]in the first place."

Why automatically build in the extra cost and overheads? If the customer
throws it away it is wasted effort and materials. In some cases, you could
make it look like an attractive marketing "bonus", maybe? Not necessary.


> Yes, by ftp or http.
>
> ][http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq....rceOnInternet]
>
> ]Sounds pretty clear.
>
> ]Recently a German court ruled in favor of GPL, wasn't a
> ]primary/important court, so it doesn't mean much, but a sign.;)
>
> I do not dispute the validity of the GPL. I dispute the validity of the
> FAQ's interpretation of the GPL.

BTW, people seem predisposed to bicker. We all need a more "customer
oriented" approach focused on delivering solutions. That does not mean
pandering. It does not mean bullying. Best for all if we provide good
service and advice. Then customers might actually come back for more. In
business it is cheaper to sell to existing customers than it is to go out
prospecting for new ones. Many forget (or never knew?) that fact.

FWIW, as an EE I've been annoyed at some of my colleagues when they tell
management or customers that "something cannot be done", when they really
mean "they don't think that's the way it should be done". Well, guess
what, it's not YOUR money to spend! As a technical resource, your job is
to lay out the options, the benefits/costs, and then the one with the
budget will make a choice. Maybe not the one you like? It's their money!
When they tell me that (a buddy of mine once told me I couldn't afford his
services) I get really annoyed: that's MY decision; you have no right to
preempt it. The decision maker spends his money and is responsible for it.

--
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.

On 2004-07-25, Lew Pitcher <lpitcher@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> GPL v2 Clause 3 states (in part):
>
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
> Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections
> 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>
> ...
>
> * b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
> to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
> physically performing source distribution, a complete
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily used for software interchange; or,
>
> - From the phrase "any third party" in clause 3b, it seems to me that the GPL
> does indeed require that you make the source code available to someone other
> than your direct customers. This seems explicitly to cover the condition where
> your customer redistributes your GPLed code.

You've overlooked "do one of the following". The person distributing the
code gets to decide which "one of the following" they are going to follow.
If you distribute source with the binaries you give to your direct
customers, then you can choose 3a as the "one of the following" that you
will follow.

--
--Tim Smith