> Point 1: Commercial usage of other people's GPL codebases without > distribution doesn't trigger source-access obligations.
When I say 'code usage', I mean in the context of incorporating GPL codebase into a product I intend to distribute. I'd have thought that was pretty clear from the context. > Point 2: You write an application that by its nature requires extensive > aftermarket extensions and support contracts (say, the central engine of > a more-extensive software framework). You specify GPL terms, and then > you sell disks that include such contracts. So can other people. They essentially have the same rights as you do to the code. Unless you're willing to dual license your code you have little commercial advantage over others. That, to me is what makes the GPL license non-commercial. Were we to take your view, even the Artistic License or MPL could be considered commercial licenses. Even a public domain 'license', accdg. to your interpretation, could also be considered commercial because it can definitely be commercially exploitable. So now I'm left wondering as to what your initial point was on insisting on the distinction between a proprietary and commercial license. > Because of the copyleft, > other competitors cannot fold your application into a proprietary > product: You alone have that right (as copyright owner). This implies dual licensing which was my point all along. GPL itself cannot be considered a commercial license, but the requirements on source release it makes on non-copyright owners helps protect the viability of a commercial license on the same source base. Without the latter though, GPL is as non-commercial as any other open (by open I mean freely viewable and distributable) source style license. > > Also note that it goes beyond just _linking_, even cut-and-paste > > counts as 'using the code'. > > But only linking is GPL-significant. HUH? Are you trying to say I can copy-and-paste source code from a GPL'ed code base and incorporate it in my own source code and I am under no obligation to release the latter?!? That's new. > > What's RMS' take on this? > > Who cares? RMS is not a judge. His opinion is not relevant to the > issue. Tsk... Rick, Rick, Rick... you're either unaware of or just choose to ignore events. RMS has been known to flex his influence when it comes to the interpretation of the GPL and his opinion carries weight. Remember how his interpretation on how Linux loadable modules should be covered by GPL constraints essentially convinced most everyone to think the same way. > > GPL's legal wording does not anticipate the myriad ways of code > > sharing that today's increasingly distributed computing environment > > allows. > > Neither does any other licence. What's your point? The GPL, because it tries to be too many things, ends up being more complicated and harder to interpret than other licenses with less ambigous provisions. > I personally think it's a bit melodramatic to call using a codebase > in conformity with its licence "serverting" that licence. > > Please note: Licences don't have "agendas" and "goals". They're not > human beings. They're legal documents. The goal/agenda behind the creation of the GPL license is to promote the sharing and openness of source code. A situation where people can make use of *modified* GPL code without them getting access to the sources[1] to said code seems to works against that goal. I think my meaning was pretty clear, you'd just rather engage in useless semantic arguments than talk about the issue I brought up. [1] You're saying that you can allow people to RPC or xmlrpc to your modified GPL code (so what's the difference between doing it across the bus vs. across a network?) and yet you are under no obligation to release your modified sources because accdg. to you, this is not equivalent to distributing it. Now maybe RMS will one day come out and say that that should be considered a form of distribution. Similar to how he interpreted module loading as a form of linking. _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
