From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a2c7f6cbdb72aa16 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tmoran@bix.com Subject: Re: "proprietary", was Re: ada on linux Date: 2000/05/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 628404188 References: <8grdg2$pgh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 959554118 206.170.2.31 (Sun, 28 May 2000 15:48:38 PDT) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 15:48:38 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >The license does NOT permit any redistribution. Microsoft I think you mean "the kind of license typically given to an end user allows him to run, but not redistribute, the program". And other licenses, typically given to retailers, allow redistribution, and still others given to system vendors may allow a variety of different things. The point is, your statement sounds like a general one about licenses (or at least "proprietary software" licenses) but in fact it's a specific statement about just one kind of license, and in that way misleading. >Well you misunderstand, if you receive a software package under >the GPL, you are absolutely free to redistribute what you If you receive a cake, are you free to redistribute it only in its entirety, or in slices? Does the GPL allow you the freedom to redistribute portions of what you received, for instance, just the binary? Does it allow you to examine the software, decide it has a very low probability of bugs, and then to redistribute it backed with a warranty? Your "absolutely free" is in fact a freedom with very definite, and sometimes onerous, restrictions, and in that way misleading. > > If you offer a product that is, or uses, GPLed software, are > > you effectively required to charge for support? > Again, completely out of left field. Just because you offer > a product which is GPL'ed does not create any support > obligations at all. If you do offer support, then the > terms and conditions of the support will deal with the > issue of modifications. Is it really practical to offer GPLed software with source code and support like "We offer no-cost support for this product, as long as you have made no changes. If you have changed anything, it makes it harder for us to help you, so you must pay $xxx for support. If you say you've made no changes, and we spend time helping you, and it turns out you have in fact made changes, then you must $yyy for the time we've spent." I suspect that in practice, ie, "effectively", you will find that you *must* charge for support, or you'll lose a lot of time and money giving free support to some people who create problems and then lie about the source of those problems. >GPL is not the right license to use in this situation. If Jones writes a program, can he offer it under different licensing arrangement to different people, one of those arrangements being the GPL? >Certainly I understand that you (or rather the company you >work for) have decided to use restrictive licenses, and that Calling other people's licenses "restrictive" and your own "absolutely free", is not, IMHO, a fair statement of the case.