(comments in line)
On 4/12/2017 12:24 PM, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
On 12/04/17 15:42, nore...@z505.com wrote:
On 2017-04-12 08:26, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
On 12/04/17 13:37, nore...@z505.com wrote:
On 2017-04-12 07:01, fredvs wrote:
e GPL is a restrictive license, so you may not use it like you
want..
Not entirely true, gpl is restrictive, yes, but it doesn't restrict your
ability to use a gpl program, and that includes selling said program.
The gpl does not restrict anyone from charging for a program, they only
state that source code must be made available for no cost (or for no
more than the cost of the actual work it takes to make it available).
There's nowhere in the gpl that states you can't charge for a program.
I find a lot of GPL applications to be low quality, half assed works,
as no one is paid to work on these programs since GPL sets a price
monopoly of zero dollars on the product.
But there are some high quality GPL apps out there.
Agreed, there are some very high quality gpl programs, (the entire linux
kernel is gpl after all).
It's just that when people are paid to work on products, you get
super high quality software such as say, oh I don't know, Adobe
graphics editing tools such as photoshop, adobe pdf reader (acrobat).
Compare that to the absolute sh(t tools on unix that are GPL'd such
as the old ghostscript reader or clunky GIMP.
Sorry to say being paid to work on software doesn't make that software
better. I've seen some pretty crappy paid software in my time. I've
even paid for some of it, and wasn't the least bit pleased to find it
literal junk. Just because you pay for something doesn't mean it's
worth what you paid for it.
But a sh*t tool like midnight commander at the command prompt is just
no comparison to a paid product like Total Commander which is by far
superior in all ways to going back to the dark ages and using a text
mode norton commander gpl program... But then again, you have a GPL'd
Double Commander which is a very nice tool. See the problem with
Double Commander is it violates its own license. Double Commander
allows you to load pretty much any Total Commander plugin, and that
itself is a violation of the GPL because those plugins are not GPL,
(many of them) and therefore you are violating the GPL by loading non
gpl compatible plugin dll's... So if double commander was just a "Do
anything the f*ck you want with it" license, such as bsd/mit, then
there would be no violation, hence the superiority of a truly free
license like mit/bsd.
All the little double commander users (myself included) are
constantly violating every single word and line in the GPL by loading
non gpl compatible total commander plugins, but no one cares, because
GPL violations happen every single day, thousands of them, and people
actually use GPL software more like bsd/mit software - just no one
actually reports these violations nor gives a flying sh*t or a flying
f*ck..
But, the gpl specifically allows for linking (and even distributing)
other code into a gpl program. Even if that code itself isn't gpl, the
license still allows you to link other parts into the application and
use it without violations. It does specifically talk about linking your
gpl code into non gpl programs, but it says nothing about linking non
gpl code into a gpl program, other than to say in general terms that
those additions may not be covered by the gpl.
I'm no gpl expert, but reading the gpl seems to indicate that these
things are all possibledo not violate the gpl. Since most license
agreements say you may use version (x) or any later version, and looking
at the gpl (version 3) seems to address all of these issues in generic
enough terms that I think you're getting all tied up in knots for no reason.
Admittedly, the gpl version 2 was a bit more restrictive, but I'm not
seeing any conflicts with version 3. It's possible I misread something,
since (like I said), I'm no expert, but in general, I see no conflicts here.
Another example is THE INTERNET, where all gpl code on the internet
is hidden from site. Businesses use gpl code to run their website
software programs and never release any of the gpl code and keep it
secret from you on their servers, because apparently according to the
Great Richard Stallman, you can ship your web program to people
without releasing the source since it is just a pipe of text, but any
time you pipe stuff over X11 you have to release the sources. It's
called hypocrisy...
I haven't run across that particular piece of wisdom, I have no idea why
piping anything across x11 would change anything, but the reason most
folks don't release their programs is because most of those businesses
using gpl code to run their websites don't actually make any changes to
the web server, and therefore, aren't required to release anything. Of
those who do make changes, I've heard it stated that as long as the code
isn't meant for public consumption, it also doesn't need to be released
back. I'm not sure I agree with this particular line of defense, but
I've seen that particular argument more than once, and it appears to be
ok with the powers that be, so who am I to argue with it.
But, in summary, charging for gpl code is ok, linking code into gpl
programs appears to be ok, as long as the linked in code isn't part of
the original program, and isn't distributed with it.
Linking a gpl library into an existing non gpl program seems to be a
problem though, and those types of setups should use the lgpl to cover
the library/code in question.
all the salient points.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
