I've tried to avoid this off topic thread but the misinformation is
killing me:
Brahm van Niekerk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think much of the misunderstandings here stem from misconceptions about
> the terms of the GNU license.
Correct.
> 3. What you may NOT do is take Linux Kernel code, put another shell around
> it and sell it as "Ports Operating System"
Incorrect. I can do whatever I want with the linux kernel (including
selling it). I just have to follow the GPL and make the source code
to any changes/enhancements available for free. I could come out with
a Linux distribution tomorrow and sell it as the "Ports Operating
System" and it would be perfectly legal if all the source was freely
available as required by the GPL (note that I would be required to
extend the rights of the GPL to anyone who bought my distribution
too). This is exactly what RedHat, SuSE, and Caldera do to make
money.
> 2. You may NOT put some additional wrapper around WebMacro and ***sell***
> it calling it your own. For this you must share some of your profits with
> Justin Wells. Reasonable enough, since he wrote it in the first place.
Also not correct. I could package webmacro into a nice package and
sell it all day long if I wanted to, as long as I made the source
freely available with the same license that I found it with. I
wouldn't owe one penny of that money to the WebMacro author. People
would be stupid for buying it from me instead of freely downloading it
but the GPL doesn't stop me from doing it.
> The sole purpose of Justin licensing it under GNU, is so that somebody
> doesn't steal his code, change it slightly and sell it as his own.
If this really is Justin's purpose then he is using the wrong license.
Your right I can't sell it as my own, I have to leave copyright
ownership with Justin but that doesn't mean I can't change it slightly
and sell it (note that the source to my changes must be freely
available).
If he wants to make money selling webmacro it is probably to people
who want to redistribute the sucker to their customers without having
to comply with the GPL (kinda like an OEM arrangement). Thus they can
sell the product without making the source code to the original
product or derivative works available (that's what the GPL protects
against). An real example of a business that does this is
Transvirtual. Companies can take Transvirtual's Kaffe VM and buy an
non-GPL license, tweak the VM for their application and sell it in
their products without having to worry about the GPL requirements.
For these reason the GPL is often called infectious or viral as it
levels the playing field and forces everybody to make all the source
code available. The fact that the copyright owner can change the
license like Justin and Transvirtual do is why in order for a piece of
GPL'd code to become an official part of the GNU project the copyright
ownership must be signed over to the FSF (who, of course, will never
make it available under a different license).
Hope this helps (and kills this thread).
--
Tom Reilly
Live Software, Inc
http://www.livesoftware.com
___________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff SERVLET-INTEREST".
Archives: http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/servlet-interest.html
Resources: http://java.sun.com/products/servlet/external-resources.html
LISTSERV Help: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/user/user.html
