Code stays GPL, code gets released, but in practice, binaries can include other glued blobs that are not GPL.(after compilation). Examples are Oracle Solaris and RedHat, SuSE etc. where binaries are available by user subscription/payment and binaries usage right are clearly different then GPL for source.

BINARIES that are distributed for GPL applications, in practice, does not necessary are fully made of GLP source code, because compilers can add binary blobs to them and only trust and internal and external audit stops compiling party for gluing who knows what into binaries, beside GPL code. GPL is file-based source code free software licence,.you provide copy of the license to all users together with source code, but it is of trust of distributing party not to end up really with binary blobls attached.

Distributor of compiled parts holds the right to distribute or not distribute binaries providing their own distribution rights (Binary licence) for compiled work. Ask Oracle and RedHat where they make money from. From having separate commercial rights for distributing binaries. (while providing source). This is why you are allowed to sell GPL programs binaries on the market price, this is exactly what Stallman was doing from day one. Everyone gets the source, everyone can contribute and re-release, just my distributed binaries cost that much of currency. And again, ask Oracle and RedHat what is the base of their business - distributing binaries that are licensed/have distributor rights to provide money for distributor.

There's nothing wrong to sell GPL based products copies and GPL clearly states that in the basic licence right. And in order to sell it, binaries behave like any other binaries and it is not the same as the code and user rights. If I have the right to sell it, I clearly have right to choose Not to sell it and that is supported by binary distribution rights of my own. (And one can call it license for binaries)

GLP is clearly commercial license that provides commercial use and saying it is non-commercial clearly violates GPL.
"You /can/ charge people a fee to get a copy /from you/ <>. You can't require people to pay you when they get a copy /from someone else/." So it is not exclusive, but distributing copies from selling party can be priced and that is the base of being commercial.

Example where even one providing clean build environment can end up with a binary payload on binaries:
Reflections of trusting trust: <> Where additionally, choosing the compiler and compiling switches and binary blobs chooses the final binaries contents.

Best way to being secure is to have trusted party audit and compile and provide binaries and that is what GIMP like projects and trusted software distributions as trusted parties are for. That kind of support and trust and ability to compile it itself, is what is actually valued and payed by the customer. Only value that is more valuable then that is ability to change software , to stay independent with changes and ability to add functionality and fix bugs directly in code. And that is where , looking at it commercially, free software excels and is winning proprietary closed products. It is clearly much more valuable then proprietary licensed copies. And GLP allows you to make money from it by distributing and supporting binaries for a price. (With your own distribution rights and that is clearly functionally the same as the binary license for your distributed binaries).

Sry for the length and late response, I mistakenly firstly responded to single person instead of the list.

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Gez < <>> wrote:

   El vie, 18-09-2015 a las 21:23 -0300, Gez escribió:

    > It has NOTHING to do with the license. The license for GPL licensed
    > work is and will be always GPL unless you're the only person who
    > wrote
    > the original code and therefor you keep the right of re-licensing it
    > to
    > whatever license you want.

   I stand myself corrected. In the above paragraph I made a mistake:
   If you're the rights holder of the original code you're free to
   distribute it with a different license. That's not the same than saying
   that you're free to re-license the GPL code.
   Once you freed it under the GPL terms, others are free to use it and
   you can't forbid them to do what the GPL allows.
   You can, however, use the same code in a program distributed with a
   different license, but that's because you hold the original rights, the
   GPL-licensed code stays GPL.


   gimp-developer-list mailing list
   List address:
   List membership:
   List archives:

gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:
List membership:
List archives:

Reply via email to