当前在线人数18903
licensing for open source projects - 未名空间精华区
首页 - 版面精华区 - 新闻中心精华区 - 科技新闻版精华区 - 精华区文章阅读 首页
未名交友
[更多]
[更多]
licensing for open source projects

发信人: breeze (gaga), 信区: ITnews
标  题: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Thu Jul 25 23:28:04 2002), 转信

i know very little about open source.. i've heard of terms
like GPL, etc.. which means if you modify the source code
you have to contribute your changes back to open source?

what about other licenses?

hypothetically, are peple allowed to take open source products
and sell them for money (with and without modification)

and if i modify open source code, and sell it, am i allowed to
copyright it? any such licensing terms available?

thanks.
--
Greed is good - Gordon Gekko

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 12.234.]
发信人: ayanami (苦瓜@让世界充满爱), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Thu Jul 25 23:29:37 2002), 转信

【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: i know very little about open source.. i've heard of terms
: like GPL, etc.. which means if you modify the source code
: you have to contribute your changes back to open source?
: what about other licenses?
: hypothetically, are peple allowed to take open source products
: and sell them for money (with and without modification)
: and if i modify open source code, and sell it, am i allowed to
: copyright it? any such licensing terms available?
yes, you can use BSD license. And there are many other licenses,
but most of the OSS use BSD or GPL.

: thanks.


--
BBS各区更名建议:

0区:酷官墨吏 1区:山头林立 2区:一盘散沙 3区:鸡毛蒜皮
4区:附庸风雅 5区:滥竽充数 6区:喧哗看客 7区:无病呻吟
8区:文功武卫

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 66.114.]
发信人: junfeng (somewhere), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Jul 26 00:39:17 2002), 站内信件

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: i know very little about open source.. i've heard of terms
: like GPL, etc.. which means if you modify the source code
: you have to contribute your changes back to open source?
: what about other licenses?
: hypothetically, are peple allowed to take open source products
: and sell them for money (with and without modification)
: and if i modify open source code, and sell it, am i allowed to
: copyright it? any such licensing terms available?
: thanks.


--
Together we make difference

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 128.104.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Jul 26 06:58:22 2002), 站内信件

【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: hypothetically, are peple allowed to take open source products
: and sell them for money (with and without modification)

the answer is actually yes and no, depending on what you think
is a sale. For example, you can charge a million for shipping and
handling and it is still OK with GPL. But you aren't allowed to
charge for the actual product itself.

: and if i modify open source code, and sell it, am i allowed to
: copyright it? any such licensing terms available?

No, you aren't allowed to copyleft an opensource code, modified
or not. This is the heart of the opensource so I doubt it
will change.

The whole thing is actually pretty inconsistent. The focus
on open source software has been "free", not in monetary terms,
software, but somehow it got into "Free", in monetary terms,
software.

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: alanine (尺子), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Jul 26 08:55:47 2002), 转信

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: : hypothetically, are peple allowed to take open source products
: : and sell them for money (with and without modification)
: the answer is actually yes and no, depending on what you think
: is a sale. For example, you can charge a million for shipping and
: handling and it is still OK with GPL. But you aren't allowed to
: charge for the actual product itself.

Well, I have to say your understanding of GPL is seriously
wrong. GPL does not care about how much you gonna charge your
customers, as long as they receive source code along with your
product. For example, if you take Redhat Linux distribution
and name it Qili Linux and manage to sell it for million bucks,
it is then all your money.

Neither does GPL care about 'returning modifications' back to the
original author. GPL does not state any rights for the author,
but instead it states the rights for the customer. GPL does lift
the liability and warranty from the author though.

Another example, if you implement some kernel patch for Linux 2.4.x,
you are perfectly fine to sell it (with source) for money to your
customers without summitting your patch back to Mr. Linus or
anybody in the LKM. You cannot prevent your customers from
revealing the patch to Linus though, GPL protects your customers'
rights if they license the patch from you under GPL terms.

: : and if i modify open source code, and sell it, am i allowed to
: : copyright it? any such licensing terms available?
: No, you aren't allowed to copyleft an opensource code, modified
: or not. This is the heart of the opensource so I doubt it
: will change.

qili's explanation is wrong again. You are perfectly fine to
declare copyright for the parts you have modified/implemented.
GPL also covers your part in the same way as it covers the
original authors. But you are not allowed to declare that
the whole product is copyrighted to you. Just give credits
to where credits due, you are safe.

Speaking of GNU software, the reason why they are asking everyone
contributing to the projects to sign a disclaimer and transfer
the rights back to GNU organization is because, they prefer
one unit to own the product and they believe they have better
resources to protect the project in any legal cases. If there
are multiple copyright holders, it will complicate the process
since everyone has to sign documents, etc., etc.

FSF is doing the same thing too. So if you assign your copyright
of a piece of software to FSF, FSF will defend it in your position
if it ever goes to the court. Of course this is provided if you
trust FSF will defend for you. It is a god-know-how question,
but still unrelated to GPL itself.

: The whole thing is actually pretty inconsistent. The focus
: on open source software has been "free", not in monetary terms,
: software, but somehow it got into "Free", in monetary terms,
: software.

The whole thing about GPL is very consistent if you truely
understand it. Yes, most GPL products are free of monetary
charge, but that is not the spirit, that is only the goodwill
of the authors.


--
于是他举起准备好的左轮手枪
对准自己的太阳穴扣动了扳机
这就是火星上的井的故事

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 210.24.]
发信人: ayanami (苦瓜@让世界充满爱), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Jul 26 09:34:30 2002), 转信

good one, well done. :)

【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : the answer is actually yes and no, depending on what you think
: : is a sale. For example, you can charge a million for shipping and
: : handling and it is still OK with GPL. But you aren't allowed to
: : charge for the actual product itself.
: Well, I have to say your understanding of GPL is seriously
: wrong. GPL does not care about how much you gonna charge your
: customers, as long as they receive source code along with your
: product. For example, if you take Redhat Linux distribution
: and name it Qili Linux and manage to sell it for million bucks,
: it is then all your money.
: Neither does GPL care about 'returning modifications' back to the
: original author. GPL does not state any rights for the author,
: but instead it states the rights for the customer. GPL does lift
: the liability and warranty from the author though.
: Another example, if you implement some kernel patch for Linux 2.4.x,
: you are perfectly fine to sell it (with source) for money to your
: customers without summitting your patch back to Mr. Linus or
: anybody in the LKM. You cannot prevent your customers from
: revealing the patch to Linus though, GPL protects your customers'
: rights if they license the patch from you under GPL terms.
: : No, you aren't allowed to copyleft an opensource code, modified
: : or not. This is the heart of the opensource so I doubt it
: : will change.
: qili's explanation is wrong again. You are perfectly fine to
: declare copyright for the parts you have modified/implemented.
: GPL also covers your part in the same way as it covers the
: original authors. But you are not allowed to declare that
: the whole product is copyrighted to you. Just give credits
: to where credits due, you are safe.
: Speaking of GNU software, the reason why they are asking everyone
: contributing to the projects to sign a disclaimer and transfer
: the rights back to GNU organization is because, they prefer
: one unit to own the product and they believe they have better
: resources to protect the project in any legal cases. If there
: are multiple copyright holders, it will complicate the process
: since everyone has to sign documents, etc., etc.
: FSF is doing the same thing too. So if you assign your copyright
: of a piece of software to FSF, FSF will defend it in your position
: if it ever goes to the court. Of course this is provided if you
: trust FSF will defend for you. It is a god-know-how question,
: but still unrelated to GPL itself.
: : The whole thing is actually pretty inconsistent. The focus
: : on open source software has been "free", not in monetary terms,
: : software, but somehow it got into "Free", in monetary terms,
: : software.
: The whole thing about GPL is very consistent if you truely
: understand it. Yes, most GPL products are free of monetary
: charge, but that is not the spirit, that is only the goodwill
: of the authors.


--
BBS各区更名建议:

0区:酷官墨吏 1区:山头林立 2区:一盘散沙 3区:鸡毛蒜皮
4区:附庸风雅 5区:滥竽充数 6区:喧哗看客 7区:无病呻吟
8区:文功武卫

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 64.252.]
发信人: opensrc (liangzi), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Jul 26 13:38:03 2002) WWW-POST

【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
:
: Well, I have to say your understanding of GPL is seriously
: wrong. GPL does not care about how much you gonna charge your
: customers, as long as they receive source code along with your
: product. For example, if you take Redhat Linux distribution
: and name it Qili Linux and manage to sell it for million bucks,
: it is then all your money.

Sorry, this is the place I don't fully understand. So how can
GPL protect the right of the software author? If everyone has
the right to sell such Qili or whatsoever linux, there is no
way for Redhat to make money from their softwares. So service
is the only option left. Am I right?

--
Be strong, if not, pretend to be.

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 128.32.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Jul 26 15:09:43 2002) WWW-POST

I thought this debate / clarification on gpl was done years ago, but it looks
like we are on one of those cycles.

If you may, shall we revert to the license itself, available
at http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html

BTW, ayanami, pay attention to the link since it used a word that you
didn't have a clue on.

【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : 【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : hypothetically, are peple allowed to take open source products
: : : and sell them for money (with and without modification)
: : the answer is actually yes and no, depending on what you think
: : is a sale. For example, you can charge a million for shipping and
: : handling and it is still OK with GPL. But you aren't allowed to
: : charge for the actual product itself.
:
: Well, I have to say your understanding of GPL is seriously
: wrong. GPL does not care about how much you gonna charge your
: customers, as long as they receive source code along with your
: product. For example, if you take Redhat Linux distribution
: and name it Qili Linux and manage to sell it for million bucks,
: it is then all your money.
:
Section 1 of Terms and Conditions states, "You may copy and distribute
verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium,
provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and
give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the
Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may
at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

In a nutshell, you can charge for the act of distribution or providing
additional services. Nothing else.



: Neither does GPL care about 'returning modifications' back to the
: original author. GPL does not state any rights for the author,
: but instead it states the rights for the customer. GPL does lift
: the liability and warranty from the author though.
:

Section 2b states that "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or
publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or
any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License. "

That is why GPL is called contageous.


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 204.60.]
发信人: breeze (gaga), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Jul 26 15:10:43 2002), 转信

which word? org as in orgasm?

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: I thought this debate / clarification on gpl was done years ago, but it looks
: like we are on one of those cycles.
: If you may, shall we revert to the license itself, available
: at http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html
: BTW, ayanami, pay attention to the link since it used a word that you
: didn't have a clue on.
: 【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
: : Well, I have to say your understanding of GPL is seriously
: : wrong. GPL does not care about how much you gonna charge your
: : customers, as long as they receive source code along with your
: : product. For example, if you take Redhat Linux distribution
: : and name it Qili Linux and manage to sell it for million bucks,
: : it is then all your money.
: Section 1 of Terms and Conditions states, "You may copy and distribute
: verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium,
: provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
: appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
: notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and
: give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the
: Program.
: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may
: at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
: In a nutshell, you can charge for the act of distribution or providing
: additional services. Nothing else.
: : Neither does GPL care about 'returning modifications' back to the
: : original author. GPL does not state any rights for the author,
: : but instead it states the rights for the customer. GPL does lift
: : the liability and warranty from the author though.
: Section 2b states that "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or
: publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or
: any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
: under the terms of this License. "
: That is why GPL is called contageous.


--
Greed is good - Gordon Gekko

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 63.121.]
发信人: loggie (二黑 - 刀), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Jul 26 15:33:22 2002), 站内信件

author is well rewarded with GPL itself, their humble income
is the name on the source code. that's it.

protection is out of scope of GPL, it has nothing to do GPL.

【 在 opensrc (liangzi) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
: : Well, I have to say your understanding of GPL is seriously
: : wrong. GPL does not care about how much you gonna charge your
: : customers, as long as they receive source code along with your
: : product. For example, if you take Redhat Linux distribution
: : and name it Qili Linux and manage to sell it for million bucks,
: : it is then all your money.
: Sorry, this is the place I don't fully understand. So how can
: GPL protect the right of the software author? If everyone has
: the right to sell such Qili or whatsoever linux, there is no
: way for Redhat to make money from their softwares. So service
: is the only option left. Am I right?


--
你说人生得失永远永恒得意多失意必定也多上天待人其实很公平
你说处世要守信用不可欺诈不可背叛不可轻许诺言
你说为人不要多疑不要多心不要多情

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 171.71.]
发信人: ayanami (苦瓜@让世界充满爱), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Jul 26 17:47:12 2002), 转信

cheap shot at someone who was trying to help you.

【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: which word? org as in orgasm?
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : I thought this debate / clarification on gpl was done years ago, but it looks
: : like we are on one of those cycles.
: : If you may, shall we revert to the license itself, available
: : at http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html
: : BTW, ayanami, pay attention to the link since it used a word that you
: : didn't have a clue on.
: : Section 1 of Terms and Conditions states, "You may copy and distribute
: : verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium,
: : provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
: : appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
: : notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and
: : give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the
: : Program.
: : You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may
: : at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
: : In a nutshell, you can charge for the act of distribution or providing
: : additional services. Nothing else.
: : Section 2b states that "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or
: : publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or
: : any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
: : under the terms of this License. "
: : That is why GPL is called contageous.


--
BBS各区更名建议:

0区:酷官墨吏 1区:山头林立 2区:一盘散沙 3区:鸡毛蒜皮
4区:附庸风雅 5区:滥竽充数 6区:喧哗看客 7区:无病呻吟
8区:文功武卫

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 64.252.]
发信人: breeze (gaga), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Jul 26 18:19:11 2002), 转信

hahaha.. ok ok.. take that back :)

【 在 ayanami (苦瓜@让世界充满爱) 的大作中提到: 】
: cheap shot at someone who was trying to help you.
: 【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: : which word? org as in orgasm?


--
Greed is good - Gordon Gekko

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 12.234.]
发信人: shishishishi (shishishishi), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Jul 26 22:35:10 2002), 站内信件

【 在 opensrc (liangzi) 的大作中提到: 】
: Sorry, this is the place I don't fully understand. So how can
: GPL protect the right of the software author? If everyone has

if you put your codes under GPL or similar open source license,
basically you give up your right. if you want protection, don't
open source it.

: the right to sell such Qili or whatsoever linux, there is no
: way for Redhat to make money from their softwares. So service
: is the only option left. Am I right?


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 66.26.]
发信人: alanine (尺子), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 01:58:30 2002), 转信

please read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

It states:

"Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software
to charge as much as they wish or can"

: Section 2b states that "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or
: publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or
: any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
: under the terms of this License. "
: That is why GPL is called contageous.

You are confused between "license at no charge under GPL" and
"selling/distribute software for a fee".

"license at no charge under GPL" means you must make your derived/modified
work under GPL without imposing a fee to the customer when they ask for
such License. So they aren't buying the license for a fee, instead they
are buying a product distributed by you for whatever fees you impose.

Please don't confuse the purchasing of a product with the purchasing
of the license.
--
于是他举起准备好的左轮手枪
对准自己的太阳穴扣动了扳机
这就是火星上的井的故事

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 210.24.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 02:13:26 2002) WWW-POST


Alanine good hit,
I once crossed the embedix.com (former Lineo) white paper which actually tried
to clarify these too and may have more for consideration, it is a good reading
though mostly it focus on embedded market

http://www.embedix.com/products/embedix_sdk/embedix/Embedding_Linux_v1-3.pdf

【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : 【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : hypothetically, are peple allowed to take open source products
: : : and sell them for money (with and without modification)
: : the answer is actually yes and no, depending on what you think
: : is a sale. For example, you can charge a million for shipping and
: : handling and it is still OK with GPL. But you aren't allowed to
: : charge for the actual product itself.
:
: Well, I have to say your understanding of GPL is seriously
: wrong. GPL does not care about how much you gonna charge your
: customers, as long as they receive source code along with your
: product. For example, if you take Redhat Linux distribution
: and name it Qili Linux and manage to sell it for million bucks,
: it is then all your money.
:
: Neither does GPL care about 'returning modifications' back to the
: original author. GPL does not state any rights for the author,
: but instead it states the rights for the customer. GPL does lift
: the liability and warranty from the author though.
:
: Another example, if you implement some kernel patch for Linux 2.4.x,
: you are perfectly fine to sell it (with source) for money to your
: customers without summitting your patch back to Mr. Linus or
: anybody in the LKM. You cannot prevent your customers from
: revealing the patch to Linus though, GPL protects your customers'
: rights if they license the patch from you under GPL terms.
:
: : : and if i modify open source code, and sell it, am i allowed to
: : : copyright it? any such licensing terms available?
: : No, you aren't allowed to copyleft an opensource code, modified
: : or not. This is the heart of the opensource so I doubt it
: : will change.
:
: qili's explanation is wrong again. You are perfectly fine to
: declare copyright for the parts you have modified/implemented.
: GPL also covers your part in the same way as it covers the
: original authors. But you are not allowed to declare that
: the whole product is copyrighted to you. Just give credits
: to where credits due, you are safe.
:
: Speaking of GNU software, the reason why they are asking everyone
: contributing to the projects to sign a disclaimer and transfer
: the rights back to GNU organization is because, they prefer
: one unit to own the product and they believe they have better
: resources to protect the project in any legal cases. If there
: are multiple copyright holders, it will complicate the process
: since everyone has to sign documents, etc., etc.
:
: FSF is doing the same thing too. So if you assign your copyright


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: microbe (纵使相逢应不识), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 02:45:30 2002), 站内信件

【 在 shishishishi (shishishishi) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 opensrc (liangzi) 的大作中提到: 】
: : Sorry, this is the place I don't fully understand. So how can
: : GPL protect the right of the software author? If everyone has
: if you put your codes under GPL or similar open source license,
: basically you give up your right. if you want protection, don't
: open source it.

If you don't start your code from GPL'ed code, you don't have to
put your code into GPL. Otherwise you have to. Period.

On the other hand, GPL protects your work by that no one can take
it away, modify it, sell it, without releasing the code.

: : the right to sell such Qili or whatsoever linux, there is no
: : way for Redhat to make money from their softwares. So service
: : is the only option left. Am I right?


--
我在门外坐了两天两夜,看着天空在不断的变化。
我才发现,虽然我到这里很久,却从来没有看清楚这片沙漠。

※ 修改:.microbe 于 Jul 27 02:46:21 修改本文.[FROM: 128.107.]
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 128.107.]
发信人: devil (闲人), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 04:05:32 2002) WWW-POST

: If you don't start your code from GPL'ed code, you don't have to
: put your code into GPL. Otherwise you have to. Period.
:
: On the other hand, GPL protects your work by that no one can take
: it away, modify it, sell it, without releasing the code.
so they take your code away, modify your code, sell it and
sure they will release the modified code if they are good citizen ;P

: : the right to sell such Qili or whatsoever linux, there is no
: : way for Redhat to make money from their softwares. So service
: : is the only option left. Am I right?
I guess this is true for open source companies, probably
this is also the reason IBM love open source and run for it,
while sunw and orcl are a little confused here.

the other day, my co-worker come and borrow my rh7.2 copy, he
ask me "is this legal to use the copied linux CD, I saw RH7.x
sell in Fry's for 160+ dollars, seems no cheaper than windows",
"sure it is ok for you to use its copy to install", then here
comes the exact question ;)

--







※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 12.234.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 06:23:42 2002), 站内信件

【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
: please read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
: It states:
: "Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software
: to charge as much as they wish or can"

and as you read on, it focues on "distributing freeware". Unless those
folks are severely confused themselves, I don't see you charging for
the content of gpl'd software. it is a different storyif you charge
for the media or distribution of the media.

: : Section 2b states that "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or
: : publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or
: : any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
: : under the terms of this License. "
: : That is why GPL is called contageous.
: You are confused between "license at no charge under GPL" and
: "selling/distribute software for a fee".
: "license at no charge under GPL" means you must make your derived/modified
: work under GPL without imposing a fee to the customer when they ask for
: such License. So they aren't buying the license for a fee, instead they
: are buying a product distributed by you for whatever fees you impose.
: Please don't confuse the purchasing of a product with the purchasing
: of the license.

1st, do you still want to argue that your obligation to return modified
GPL code back to GPL is not absolute?

2ndly, didn't you just pretty much answered your own question? aka the inability
to charge for the software (or its license).


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 06:30:57 2002), 站内信件

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: Alanine good hit,
: I once crossed the embedix.com (former Lineo) white paper which actually tried
: to clarify these too and may have more for consideration, it is a good reading
: though mostly it focus on embedded market
: http://www.embedix.com/products/embedix_sdk/embedix/Embedding_Linux_v1-3.pdf

what did the first page see about costs of gpl's software? "a vendor
must make the source code available to their customers for only
the cost of the media and shipping / handling". Does anyone still
want to argue that you can charge for the software itself?

The other myth the article spelled out is quite interesting, and
educationale to some of opensource supporters here:

1) the open source community provides everything for my product;
2) open source code is automatically of high quality (ha!)
3) access tot he source code reduces effort required;

Guess some of the opensource people here really don't know
opensource that well (well, they don't even know "copyleft" for
god's sake).

: 【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
: : Well, I have to say your understanding of GPL is seriously
: : wrong. GPL does not care about how much you gonna charge your
: : customers, as long as they receive source code along with your
: : product. For example, if you take Redhat Linux distribution
: : and name it Qili Linux and manage to sell it for million bucks,
: : it is then all your money.
: : Neither does GPL care about 'returning modifications' back to the
: : original author. GPL does not state any rights for the author,
: : but instead it states the rights for the customer. GPL does lift
: : the liability and warranty from the author though.
: : Another example, if you implement some kernel patch for Linux 2.4.x,
: : you are perfectly fine to sell it (with source) for money to your
: : customers without summitting your patch back to Mr. Linus or
: : anybody in the LKM. You cannot prevent your customers from
: : revealing the patch to Linus though, GPL protects your customers'
: : rights if they license the patch from you under GPL terms.
: : qili's explanation is wrong again. You are perfectly fine to
: : declare copyright for the parts you have modified/implemented.
: : GPL also covers your part in the same way as it covers the
: : original authors. But you are not allowed to declare that
: : the whole product is copyrighted to you. Just give credits
: : to where credits due, you are safe.
: : Speaking of GNU software, the reason why they are asking everyone
: : contributing to the projects to sign a disclaimer and transfer
: : the rights back to GNU organization is because, they prefer
: : one unit to own the product and they believe they have better
: : resources to protect the project in any legal cases. If there
: : are multiple copyright holders, it will complicate the process
: : since everyone has to sign documents, etc., etc.
: : FSF is doing the same thing too. So if you assign your copyright


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 10:43:15 2002) WWW-POST



Qili,I think you made mistake, "source code" at the cost of shipping/handling,
doesn't mean you can't charge for the product, I think you saw redhat is sold
in stores.

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: : Alanine good hit,
: : I once crossed the embedix.com (former Lineo) white paper which actually
tried
: : to clarify these too and may have more for consideration, it is a good
reading
: : though mostly it focus on embedded market
: :
http://www.embedix.com/products/embedix_sdk/embedix/Embedding_Linux_v1-3.pdf
:
: what did the first page see about costs of gpl's software? "a vendor
: must make the source code available to their customers for only
: the cost of the media and shipping / handling". Does anyone still
: want to argue that you can charge for the software itself?
:
: The other myth the article spelled out is quite interesting, and
: educationale to some of opensource supporters here:
:
: 1) the open source community provides everything for my product;
: 2) open source code is automatically of high quality (ha!)
: 3) access tot he source code reduces effort required;
:
: Guess some of the opensource people here really don't know
: opensource that well (well, they don't even know "copyleft" for
: god's sake).
:
: : 【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : Well, I have to say your understanding of GPL is seriously
: : : wrong. GPL does not care about how much you gonna charge your
: : : customers, as long as they receive source code along with your
: : : product. For example, if you take Redhat Linux distribution
: : : and name it Qili Linux and manage to sell it for million bucks,
: : : it is then all your money.
: : : Neither does GPL care about 'returning modifications' back to the
: : : original author. GPL does not state any rights for the author,
: : : but instead it states the rights for the customer. GPL does lift
: : : the liability and warranty from the author though.
: : : Another example, if you implement some kernel patch for Linux 2.4.x,
: : : you are perfectly fine to sell it (with source) for money to your
: : : customers without summitting your patch back to Mr. Linus or
: : : anybody in the LKM. You cannot prevent your customers from
: : : revealing the patch to Linus though, GPL protects your customers'
: : : rights if they license the patch from you under GPL terms.
: : : qili's explanation is wrong again. You are perfectly fine to
: : : declare copyright for the parts you have modified/implemented.
: : : GPL also covers your part in the same way as it covers the
: : : original authors. But you are not allowed to declare that
: : : the whole product is copyrighted to you. Just give credits
: : : to where credits due, you are safe.
: : : Speaking of GNU software, the reason why they are asking everyone
: : : contributing to the projects to sign a disclaimer and transfer
: : : the rights back to GNU organization is because, they prefer
: : : one unit to own the product and they believe they have better


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 11:10:19 2002), 站内信件

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: Qili,I think you made mistake, "source code" at the cost of shipping/handling,
: doesn't mean you can't charge for the product, I think you saw redhat is sold
: in stores.

I wouldn't go into details, but GPL covers code in object or executible forms
in section 3. Please pay attention that in the preamble to section 3, it
states clearly that it is subject to Section 1 and 2.

I think it is pretty clear cut at this point that while you can charge
for shipping and handling (maybe other value -added services), you aren't
allowed to charge for the software itself.

Considering why Stallman got his idea on GPL (as a way to move
away from the shareware concept that he so disliked), it wouldn't
surprise me that in the early years of GPL, the word "free" might
have meant something different from what it meant today.

BTW, those "commercial" versions of linux are perfect legal because
the costs are justified as handling / media expenses.

--
※ 修改:.qili 于 Jul 27 11:11:06 修改本文.[FROM: 24.45.]
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 12:52:34 2002) WWW-POST


Upon request, vendors must provide source code to their CUSTOMERS at the
shipping and handling fee, in another words, mostlikely you will need to be a
customer to gain access to source code. How do you think you can be a
customer?
【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: : Qili,I think you made mistake, "source code" at the cost of
shipping/handling,
: : doesn't mean you can't charge for the product, I think you saw redhat is
sold
: : in stores.
:
: I wouldn't go into details, but GPL covers code in object or executible
forms
: in section 3. Please pay attention that in the preamble to section 3, it
: states clearly that it is subject to Section 1 and 2.
:
: I think it is pretty clear cut at this point that while you can charge
: for shipping and handling (maybe other value -added services), you aren't
: allowed to charge for the software itself.
:
: Considering why Stallman got his idea on GPL (as a way to move
: away from the shareware concept that he so disliked), it wouldn't
: surprise me that in the early years of GPL, the word "free" might
: have meant something different from what it meant today.
:
: BTW, those "commercial" versions of linux are perfect legal because
: the costs are justified as handling / media expenses.
:


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:02:15 2002), 站内信件

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: Upon request, vendors must provide source code to their CUSTOMERS at the
: shipping and handling fee, in another words, mostlikely you will need to be a
: customer to gain access to source code. How do you think you can be a
: customer?

Did you get that directly from GPL, or an interpreted version of GPL?

Anyway, that's too easy of a question, :). Before I answer it, tho., I
would like you to read through the gpl licensing agreement. To the
extent you have questions, our resident lawyer-wannabe SandyG will
be glad to answer them for you.


: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: shipping/handling,
: sold
: : I wouldn't go into details, but GPL covers code in object or executible
: forms
: : in section 3. Please pay attention that in the preamble to section 3, it
: : states clearly that it is subject to Section 1 and 2.
: : I think it is pretty clear cut at this point that while you can charge
: : for shipping and handling (maybe other value -added services), you aren't
: : allowed to charge for the software itself.
: : Considering why Stallman got his idea on GPL (as a way to move
: : away from the shareware concept that he so disliked), it wouldn't
: : surprise me that in the early years of GPL, the word "free" might
: : have meant something different from what it meant today.
: : BTW, those "commercial" versions of linux are perfect legal because
: : the costs are justified as handling / media expenses.


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:04:51 2002) WWW-POST

Can programming and putting things together be termed as handling/service?

The problem I think is from the daisy chain effect if you distribute to one
(with whatever you think being the handling fee), the others can distribute at
a FREE term

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
:
: Upon request, vendors must provide source code to their CUSTOMERS at the
: shipping and handling fee, in another words, mostlikely you will need to be
a
: customer to gain access to source code. How do you think you can be a
: customer?
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : 【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : Qili,I think you made mistake, "source code" at the cost of
: shipping/handling,
: : : doesn't mean you can't charge for the product, I think you saw redhat is
: sold
: : : in stores.
: :
: : I wouldn't go into details, but GPL covers code in object or executible
: forms
: : in section 3. Please pay attention that in the preamble to section 3, it
: : states clearly that it is subject to Section 1 and 2.
: :
: : I think it is pretty clear cut at this point that while you can charge
: : for shipping and handling (maybe other value -added services), you aren't
: : allowed to charge for the software itself.
: :
: : Considering why Stallman got his idea on GPL (as a way to move
: : away from the shareware concept that he so disliked), it wouldn't
: : surprise me that in the early years of GPL, the word "free" might
: : have meant something different from what it meant today.
: :
: : BTW, those "commercial" versions of linux are perfect legal because
: : the costs are justified as handling / media expenses.
: :
:
:


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:05:45 2002) WWW-POST


It is not a question BTW, i don't really need to ask you for anything, even it
is free.
【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: : Upon request, vendors must provide source code to their CUSTOMERS at the
: : shipping and handling fee, in another words, mostlikely you will need to
be a
: : customer to gain access to source code. How do you think you can be a
: : customer?
:
: Did you get that directly from GPL, or an interpreted version of GPL?
:
: Anyway, that's too easy of a question, :). Before I answer it, tho., I
: would like you to read through the gpl licensing agreement. To the
: extent you have questions, our resident lawyer-wannabe SandyG will
: be glad to answer them for you.
:
:
: : 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : shipping/handling,
: : sold
: : : I wouldn't go into details, but GPL covers code in object or executible
: : forms
: : : in section 3. Please pay attention that in the preamble to section 3, it
: : : states clearly that it is subject to Section 1 and 2.
: : : I think it is pretty clear cut at this point that while you can charge
: : : for shipping and handling (maybe other value -added services), you
aren't
: : : allowed to charge for the software itself.
: : : Considering why Stallman got his idea on GPL (as a way to move
: : : away from the shareware concept that he so disliked), it wouldn't
: : : surprise me that in the early years of GPL, the word "free" might
: : : have meant something different from what it meant today.
: : : BTW, those "commercial" versions of linux are perfect legal because
: : : the costs are justified as handling / media expenses.
:
:


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:07:40 2002) WWW-POST


you can remain silent if you like, I read GPL and other interpretations, if
you like to read the whitepaper I pasted earlier.
【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
:
: It is not a question BTW, i don't really need to ask you for anything, even
it
: is free.
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : 【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : Upon request, vendors must provide source code to their CUSTOMERS at the
: : : shipping and handling fee, in another words, mostlikely you will need to
: be a
: : : customer to gain access to source code. How do you think you can be a
: : : customer?
: :
: : Did you get that directly from GPL, or an interpreted version of GPL?
: :
: : Anyway, that's too easy of a question, :). Before I answer it, tho., I
: : would like you to read through the gpl licensing agreement. To the
: : extent you have questions, our resident lawyer-wannabe SandyG will
: : be glad to answer them for you.
: :
: :
: : : 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : shipping/handling,
: : : sold
: : : : I wouldn't go into details, but GPL covers code in object or
executible
: : : forms
: : : : in section 3. Please pay attention that in the preamble to section 3,
it
: : : : states clearly that it is subject to Section 1 and 2.
: : : : I think it is pretty clear cut at this point that while you can charge
: : : : for shipping and handling (maybe other value -added services), you
: aren't
: : : : allowed to charge for the software itself.
: : : : Considering why Stallman got his idea on GPL (as a way to move
: : : : away from the shareware concept that he so disliked), it wouldn't
: : : : surprise me that in the early years of GPL, the word "free" might
: : : : have meant something different from what it meant today.
: : : : BTW, those "commercial" versions of linux are perfect legal because
: : : : the costs are justified as handling / media expenses.
: :
: :
:
:


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:14:55 2002) WWW-POST

BTW, everybody knows it is clearly a bullshiting on the GPL that REDHAT
charges more than a couple thousands on  a server distribution.

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
:
: you can remain silent if you like, I read GPL and other interpretations, if
: you like to read the whitepaper I pasted earlier.
: 【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: :
: : It is not a question BTW, i don't really need to ask you for anything,
even
: it
: : is free.
: : 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : 【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : : Upon request, vendors must provide source code to their CUSTOMERS at
the
: : : : shipping and handling fee, in another words, mostlikely you will need
to
: : be a
: : : : customer to gain access to source code. How do you think you can be a
: : : : customer?
: : :
: : : Did you get that directly from GPL, or an interpreted version of GPL?
: : :
: : : Anyway, that's too easy of a question, :). Before I answer it, tho., I
: : : would like you to read through the gpl licensing agreement. To the
: : : extent you have questions, our resident lawyer-wannabe SandyG will
: : : be glad to answer them for you.
: : :
: : :
: : : : 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : : shipping/handling,
: : : : sold
: : : : : I wouldn't go into details, but GPL covers code in object or
: executible
: : : : forms
: : : : : in section 3. Please pay attention that in the preamble to section
3,
: it
: : : : : states clearly that it is subject to Section 1 and 2.
: : : : : I think it is pretty clear cut at this point that while you can
charge
: : : : : for shipping and handling (maybe other value -added services), you
: : aren't
: : : : : allowed to charge for the software itself.
: : : : : Considering why Stallman got his idea on GPL (as a way to move
: : : : : away from the shareware concept that he so disliked), it wouldn't
: : : : : surprise me that in the early years of GPL, the word "free" might
: : : : : have meant something different from what it meant today.
: : : : : BTW, those "commercial" versions of linux are perfect legal because
: : : : : the costs are justified as handling / media expenses.
: : :
: : :
: :
: :
:
:


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:16:23 2002), 站内信件

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: you can remain silent if you like, I read GPL and other interpretations, if
: you like to read the whitepaper I pasted earlier.

you simply copied from that whitepaper, didn't you? :) I would have given
more respect to it had you thought of it yourself.

If you go through the GPL, it did not have being a customer as
a pre-requisite to requesting source code. In a nutshell, the
author of that whitepaper isn't correct in saying that you had
to be a customer to be able to request the source code.

GPL does provide reasonable provisions that allow the cost
of providing the software or additional services above and
beyond that GPL calls for to be passed onto the customer.

As to you question, Customer 1 of a GPL software package is
free to distribution the software. For example, he can
upload the software to a website for afree download. And the
GPL author is obligated to, under the GPL licensing agreement,
to provide source code to anyone who may request (covered in
section 2 and 3).

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:18:09 2002), 站内信件

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: Can programming and putting things together be termed as handling/service?

Programming probably cannot be termed "handling / servicing". But
packaging, in the form of distro, is likely OK for a pay-for-service
thing.


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:19:10 2002), 站内信件

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: BTW, everybody knows it is clearly a bullshiting on the GPL that REDHAT
: charges more than a couple thousands on  a server distribution.

I never talked to "everybody" so i cannot comment on their view of
multi-G redhat. But GPL doesn't require the fees to be reasonable,
last time I read it.

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:22:02 2002), 站内信件

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: : you can remain silent if you like, I read GPL and other interpretations, if
: : you like to read the whitepaper I pasted earlier.
: If you go through the GPL, it did not have being a customer as
: a pre-requisite to requesting source code. In a nutshell, the

come to think of it, GPL doesn't have the concept of a 'customer".
GPL frees the author of any liabilities and warranties and other
obligations that exit in a commercial customer-vendor
relationship.

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:26:43 2002) WWW-POST


So the point is that you can still charge whatever you like as long as someone
else won't break the chain.  But anyway, what am really trying to say is that
it is possible to gain customers because those "expertee service" is needed
for commericial deployment, once that "service" is needed, charge them to
hell.



【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: : BTW, everybody knows it is clearly a bullshiting on the GPL that REDHAT
: : charges more than a couple thousands on  a server distribution.
:
: I never talked to "everybody" so i cannot comment on their view of
: multi-G redhat. But GPL doesn't require the fees to be reasonable,
: last time I read it.
:


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: devil (闲人), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:27:22 2002), 站内信件

【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: i know very little about open source.. i've heard of terms
: like GPL, etc.. which means if you modify the source code
: you have to contribute your changes back to open source?
: what about other licenses?

it depends on your work,
if you work for an equipment company, ie. you want port some
OS to your device and do not want to reveal tech details to
your competitors, I think BSD or Lesser GPL license is more
suitable for you, not sure whether embed Linux uses
Lesser GPL (I assume no), which as I understanding will not
ask you to open your source code if your work is based on
a Lesser GPL code/lib.

if your develop application, ie, no change to Linux kernal,
probably you have no need to worried about GPL, since almost
all GNU development librarys are under Lesser GPL, therefore,
you can still keep your code and sell the binary only.


: hypothetically, are peple allowed to take open source products
: and sell them for money (with and without modification)
: and if i modify open source code, and sell it, am i allowed to
: copyright it? any such licensing terms available?
: thanks.


--

※ 修改:.devil 于 Jul 27 13:35:14 修改本文.[FROM: 128.107.]
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 128.107.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:33:40 2002), 站内信件

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: So the point is that you can still charge whatever you like as long as someone
: else won't break the chain. 

I think that is right.

: But anyway, what am really trying to say is that
: it is possible to gain customers because those "expertee service" is needed
: for commericial deployment, once that "service" is needed, charge them to
: hell.

Well, that was the game plan for those Linux distribution companies like
RedHat. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out exactly as planned.

But they are not covered under GPL. For example, you cannot
copy that little book that comes with RedHat, or gives your
free customer service to others who aren't entitled to such
services.

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: devil (闲人), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 03:26:05 2002) WWW-POST

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: So the point is that you can still charge whatever you like as long as
someone
: else won't break the chain.  But anyway, what am really trying to say is
that
: it is possible to gain customers because those "expertee service" is needed
: for commericial deployment, once that "service" is needed, charge them to

this is probably the current open source companies' business model,
they mainly depend on service/training.

once someone transfered here one news from linuxdaily with a great
title "linux goes exterprise ...", in that article, the author also
dicussed GPL, basically his point is GPL won't be a good sustainable
business model for open source company, he presented an interested
scenario:

the harder you working, the greater your product could be,
and the less money you can make from service, which basically
is your major revenue source.


: hell.
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : I never talked to "everybody" so i cannot comment on their view of
: : multi-G redhat. But GPL doesn't require the fees to be reasonable,
: : last time I read it.


--







※ 修改:·devil 於 Jul 28 03:26:05 修改本文·[FROM: 12.234.]
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 12.234.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 13:51:31 2002), 站内信件

【 在 devil (闲人) 的大作中提到: 】
: once someone transfered here one news from linuxdaily with a great
: title "linux goes exterprise ...", in that article, the author also
: dicussed GPL, basically his point is GPL won't be a good sustaining
: business model for open source company, he presented an interested

Thank you. I have argued many times here that the servicing
model wouldn't work for the Linux companies AND foundamentally
will be an impediment to Linux itself.

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 14:01:01 2002) WWW-POST


Agree with the assessment except that for embedded market it will take much
longer to be "great" thus the service is always a must.

Anyhow it can be proved that GPL is not necessarily a hard constraint, the
boundary can be transpassed. Though no customer-provider relationship,  it
can be shaped that way since as long as people need sth, they are customers.

Totally agree that Linux model is not sustainable due to the daisy chain
effect, easy to copy (no IP protection?) bussiness model, greater product
requires less service etc. 
【 在 devil (闲人) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: : So the point is that you can still charge whatever you like as long as
someone
: : else won't break the chain.  But anyway, what am really trying to say is
that
: : it is possible to gain customers because those "expertee service" is
needed
: : for commericial deployment, once that "service" is needed, charge them to
:
: this is probably the current open source companies' business model,
: they mainly depends on service/training.
:
: once someone transfered here one news from linuxdaily with a great
: title "linux goes exterprise ...", in that article, the author also
: dicussed GPL, basically his point is GPL won't be a good sustaining
: business model for open source company, he presented an interested
: scenario:
:
: the harder you working, the greater your product could be,
: and the less money you can make from service, which basically
: is your major revenue source.
:
:
: : hell.
: : 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : I never talked to "everybody" so i cannot comment on their view of
: : : multi-G redhat. But GPL doesn't require the fees to be reasonable,
: : : last time I read it.
:
:




--
※ 修改:·mast 於 Jul 27 14:01:01 修改本文·[FROM: 68.100.]
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: devil (闲人), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 14:05:39 2002), 站内信件

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 devil (闲人) 的大作中提到: 】
: : once someone transfered here one news from linuxdaily with a great
: : title "linux goes exterprise ...", in that article, the author also
: : dicussed GPL, basically his point is GPL won't be a good sustaining
: : business model for open source company, he presented an interested
: Thank you. I have argued many times here that the servicing
: model wouldn't work for the Linux companies AND foundamentally
: will be an impediment to Linux itself.

I would love to see those hard working guys get well finance rewarded,
but I will not give them finance reward unless I was forceed to :))

not know whether this is true for most ppl, I guess many.

today's /. has a thread regarding a GPLed Python book, one guys
has an interested thought:

"
Does anyone know if the author of the book gets paid by Green Tea for
donating or "copylefting" the book?

I'm working on the theory of collecting tax deductions for copylefted
art, and this contribution is a great example because it closely
resembles historically donated items. If the author donates the
artwork to the right organization - he could by my reading of the IRS be
paid in tax deductions.

Does anyone know of cases in Open Source / Copyleft where tax
deduction are being used to help cover expenses?
"

then the answer from another guy is

"
I believe what you are on is the road to jail for tax evasion.
"


--

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 128.107.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 14:14:57 2002), 站内信件

【 在 devil (闲人) 的大作中提到: 】
: I would love to see those hard working guys get well finance rewarded,
: but I will not give them finance reward unless I was forceed to :))

well, I don't know how financial awards get into their decision making.
Don't they do opensource for love? But then, the redhat ipo fiasco
may point in the other direction.

: "
: Does anyone know if the author of the book gets paid by Green Tea for
: donating or "copylefting" the book?
: I'm working on the theory of collecting tax deductions for copylefted
: art, and this contribution is a great example because it closely
: resembles historically donated items. If the author donates the
: artwork to the right organization - he could by my reading of the IRS be
: paid in tax deductions.
: Does anyone know of cases in Open Source / Copyleft where tax
: deduction are being used to help cover expenses?
: "

I don't think it is an outlandish idea. the difficulty is
to make open source a 'charity", not just a non-for-profit. But
what charitable activities could it have?

Something needs to be done foundamentally for Linux to have a meaningful
role in the mass' life. and it better be done sooner rather than later.


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: devil (闲人), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 14:38:28 2002), 站内信件

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】

: Totally agree that Linux model is not sustainable due to the daisy chain
: effect, easy to copy (no IP protection?) bussiness model, greater product
: requires less service etc. 

one question, with GPL, can RH or other Linux distributor claim right
on their CD distribution (not software or source code, and they will ship
source code of cause), and stop offering download, and allege copy
those CD are illegal, and sell those CD for some $$?

--

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 128.107.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 14:58:32 2002), 站内信件

【 在 devil (闲人) 的大作中提到: 】
: one question, with GPL, can RH or other Linux distributor claim right
: on their CD distribution (not software or source code, and they will ship
: source code of cause),

i don't think that's clear. GPL only requires them to make the "Program"
available, but it doesn't say it has to be available in the way that
is distributed via the CD.

: and stop offering download,

I think the answer is yes. As long as the program is made available
(for example, at Compusa), you are in compliance with GPL. Suse,
argueably the best linux distrobution is doing precisely that.

: and allege copy
: those CD are illegal, and sell those CD for some $$?

No. they cannot.

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 15:05:04 2002) WWW-POST


I remember I read the code has to be downloadable or publicly available such
terms. Forgot where I got this, can dig it tonight


【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 devil (闲人) 的大作中提到: 】
: : one question, with GPL, can RH or other Linux distributor claim right
: : on their CD distribution (not software or source code, and they will ship
: : source code of cause),
:
: i don't think that's clear. GPL only requires them to make the "Program"
: available, but it doesn't say it has to be available in the way that
: is distributed via the CD.
:
: : and stop offering download,
:
: I think the answer is yes. As long as the program is made available
: (for example, at Compusa), you are in compliance with GPL. Suse,
: argueably the best linux distrobution is doing precisely that.
:
: : and allege copy
: : those CD are illegal, and sell those CD for some $$?
:
: No. they cannot.
:


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: breeze (gaga), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 19:03:09 2002), 转信

what about sourceforge.net projects? if i take one of them
and .. let's say.. change the english text to chinese..
can i sell it to chinese companies without telling them this
is open sourced?

what are my rights and what are my obligations if i did
the above?

thanks


【 在 devil (闲人) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: : i know very little about open source.. i've heard of terms
: : like GPL, etc.. which means if you modify the source code
: : you have to contribute your changes back to open source?
: : what about other licenses?
: it depends on your work,
: if you work for an equipment company, ie. you want port some
: OS to your device and do not want to reveal tech details to
: your competitors, I think BSD or Lesser GPL license is more
: suitable for you, not sure whether embed Linux uses
: Lesser GPL (I assume no), which as I understanding will not
: ask you to open your source code if your work is based on
: a Lesser GPL code/lib.
: if your develop application, ie, no change to Linux kernal,
: probably you have no need to worried about GPL, since almost
: all GNU development librarys are under Lesser GPL, therefore,
: you can still keep your code and sell the binary only.
: : hypothetically, are peple allowed to take open source products
: : and sell them for money (with and without modification)
: : and if i modify open source code, and sell it, am i allowed to
: : copyright it? any such licensing terms available?
: : thanks.


--
Greed is good - Gordon Gekko

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 12.234.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sat Jul 27 22:08:14 2002) WWW-POST

【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: what about sourceforge.net projects? if i take one of them
: and .. let's say.. change the english text to chinese..
: can i sell it to chinese companies without telling them this
: is open sourced?

my understanding is that sourceforge.net is a collection of open source
software projects. And as you may have known by now, there is no uniform open
source license. Instead, there are quite a few of them, gpl and bsd being the
most famouse one.

So if a sourceforge project uses bsd, your modfication based on it would
follow bsd.


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: alanine (尺子), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 03:12:57 2002), 转信

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
: : please read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
: : It states:
: : "Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software
: : to charge as much as they wish or can"
: and as you read on, it focues on "distributing freeware". Unless those
: folks are severely confused themselves, I don't see you charging for
: the content of gpl'd software. it is a different storyif you charge
: for the media or distribution of the media.

Unless you are severely confused yourself, I don't see any
difference between charging for the GPL product and charging
for "the content of GPL'd software".

License is a license, product is a product. Your shipping and
handling belongs to neither.

: 1st, do you still want to argue that your obligation to return modified
: GPL code back to GPL is not absolute?

Of course, it is not absolute as I mentioned. Sorry if I have
missed your points on insisting it. I don't think GPL license
has any mention of returning the code back to author. It only
says to release the source to those who license the product.

: 2ndly, didn't you just pretty much answered your own question?
: aka the inability to charge for the software (or its license).

You are still confusing the software itself & the license.

--
于是他举起准备好的左轮手枪
对准自己的太阳穴扣动了扳机
这就是火星上的井的故事

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 210.24.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 07:26:28 2002), 站内信件

【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : and as you read on, it focues on "distributing freeware". Unless those
: : folks are severely confused themselves, I don't see you charging for
: : the content of gpl'd software. it is a different storyif you charge
: : for the media or distribution of the media.
: Unless you are severely confused yourself, I don't see any
: difference between charging for the GPL product and charging
: for "the content of GPL'd software".

I guess the gpl authors took a different view and does separate
the charging for the product and charging for value-added services
and distribution costs.

Again, re-reading the sections I had highlighted for you would be helpful.
It is written in pretty plain English also.

: : 1st, do you still want to argue that your obligation to return modified
: : GPL code back to GPL is not absolute?
: Of course, it is not absolute as I mentioned.

Well, I am happy that we settled on that one, ;)

Sorry if I have
: missed your points on insisting it. I don't think GPL license
: has any mention of returning the code back to author. It only
: says to release the source to those who license the product.

You can think all you want - btw, I used to think that banks
should just hand people money whenever they need it. Too bad
that it never happened in real life.

: : 2ndly, didn't you just pretty much answered your own question?
: : aka the inability to charge for the software (or its license).
: You are still confusing the software itself & the license.

Well, whatever.

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: alanine (尺子), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 08:16:24 2002), 转信

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: Well, I am happy that we settled on that one, ;)

In case that you assumed I was the one who said modification
must be returned to the author, no, it wasn't me. I said just
the opposite.

: : You are still confusing the software itself & the license.
: Well, whatever.

Let me clear this out, the argument between two of us is mainly
on the charging part, i.e., whether GPL allows you to charge
for the software product. My understanding is "yes, GPL allows
that" and your understanding is "no, GPL only allows you to
charge for ship&handling but not the software itself". Am I
right to summarize it this way?

Ok, let's take a look at the line 2(b) of GPL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License"

To put it simple, the sentence is:
"You must cause ... to be licensed ... at no charge ... under this
license"

The difference between a product and a license shall be quite
straightforward, product is the actual "thing", in this case, the
software; license is the terms & conditions on how the licensee
is allowed to use the "product".

For example, Windows 2000 Server has difference licenses, from 2
people to 200 and so on. When you purchase Windows 2000 Server,
you pay for the product once, but you still have to pay extra for
the license of the rights to use the very same product for 200
people.

Therefore, my interpretation to the above line is, you must not
charge the licensee for a fee on the GPL license.

Of course you may still dismiss my explanation as "you can think
all you want" and quote your "bank" example again. Then I'll just
end here, since I've explained my reasoningin details.

--
于是他举起准备好的左轮手枪
对准自己的太阳穴扣动了扳机
这就是火星上的井的故事

※ 修改:.alanine 于 Jul 28 08:18:42 修改本文.[FROM: 210.24.]
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 210.24.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 11:07:54 2002) WWW-POST


it is my understanding too, you can charge whatever as long as there is one
who likes to pay. Very simple.  These are clearly stated in the preamble of
the GPL

"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our
General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to
distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish),
that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change
the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you
can do these things "


【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : Well, I am happy that we settled on that one, ;)
:
: In case that you assumed I was the one who said modification
: must be returned to the author, no, it wasn't me. I said just
: the opposite.
:
: : : You are still confusing the software itself & the license.
: : Well, whatever.
:
: Let me clear this out, the argument between two of us is mainly
: on the charging part, i.e., whether GPL allows you to charge
: for the software product. My understanding is "yes, GPL allows
: that" and your understanding is "no, GPL only allows you to
: charge for ship&handling but not the software itself". Am I
: right to summarize it this way?
:
: Ok, let's take a look at the line 2(b) of GPL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
:
: "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
: whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
: part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
: parties under the terms of this License"
:
: To put it simple, the sentence is:
: "You must cause ... to be licensed ... at no charge ... under this
: license"
:
: The difference between a product and a license shall be quite
: straightforward, product is the actual "thing", in this case, the
: software; license is the terms & conditions on how the licensee
: is allowed to use the "product".
:
: For example, Windows 2000 Server has difference licenses, from 2
: people to 200 and so on. When you purchase Windows 2000 Server,
: you pay for the product once, but you still have to pay extra for
: the license of the rights to use the very same product for 200
: people.
:
: Therefore, my interpretation to the above line is, you must not
: charge the licensee for a fee on the GPL license.
:
: Of course you may still dismiss my explanation as "you can think
: all you want" and quote your "bank" example again. Then I'll just
: end here, since I've explained my reasoningin details.
:




--
※ 修改:·mast 於 Jul 28 11:07:54 修改本文·[FROM: 68.100.]
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 11:44:59 2002), 站内信件

I think this is getting unneccesarily (?) complicated here.

【 在 alanine (尺子) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: Let me clear this out, the argument between two of us is mainly
: on the charging part, i.e., whether GPL allows you to charge
: for the software product. My understanding is "yes, GPL allows
: that" and your understanding is "no, GPL only allows you to
: charge for ship&handling but not the software itself". Am I
: right to summarize it this way?
: Ok, let's take a look at the line 2(b) of GPL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
: "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
: whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
: part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
: parties under the terms of this License"
: To put it simple, the sentence is:
: "You must cause ... to be licensed ... at no charge ... under this
: license"
: The difference between a product and a license shall be quite
: straightforward, product is the actual "thing", in this case, the
: software; license is the terms & conditions on how the licensee
: is allowed to use the "product".

I think people here understand perfectly the distinction between
a license to a product and the product itself. And if you read
the definition of "you", in section 0, you will notice that the "you"
here is defined as the "licensee". So it is entirely clear, to me at least,
that we are talking about licenses here, not the actual product. If
we were, selling a GPL product would have meant to getting consent to
all copyright owners that are vested in the product historically.

: Therefore, my interpretation to the above line is, you must not
: charge the licensee for a fee on the GPL license.

I think it is clearly out of the question since the sentence you
had just quoted simply prohibits, explicitly, you from doing so.


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 11:48:00 2002), 站内信件

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: it is my understanding too, you can charge whatever as long as there is one
: who likes to pay. Very simple.  These are clearly stated in the preamble of
: the GPL
: "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our
: General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to
: distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish),
: that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change
: the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you
: can do these things "

I think you qouted the wrong paragraph, as the 3rd line in the above
said, in essence, that you can charge for this SERVICE (of distributing
the free software) if you wish.

In no part it stated thatyou can charge for the product (or granting licenses
of the product).

so legally there is a distinction between charging for the product (or
its licenses) and charging for distribution of the product / licenses.

Does it matter in reality to users? Only to the extent that the
licensees are free to pass the license to others.

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 12:16:25 2002) WWW-POST


as everybody knows what a product is, it is not simply weight by how many
lines of code like you weigh a chunk of pork butt... what is the definition of
a software product by all means? product is a service.

again, The essence of the GPL is not for price sake


【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: : it is my understanding too, you can charge whatever as long as there is
one
: : who likes to pay. Very simple.  These are clearly stated in the preamble
of
: : the GPL
: : "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
Our
: : General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the
freedom to
: : distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you
wish),
: : that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can
change
: : the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know
you
: : can do these things "
:
: I think you qouted the wrong paragraph, as the 3rd line in the above
: said, in essence, that you can charge for this SERVICE (of distributing
: the free software) if you wish.
:
: In no part it stated thatyou can charge for the product (or granting
licenses
: of the product).
:
: so legally there is a distinction between charging for the product (or
: its licenses) and charging for distribution of the product / licenses.
:
: Does it matter in reality to users? Only to the extent that the
: licensees are free to pass the license to others.
:




--
※ 修改:·mast 於 Jul 28 12:16:25 修改本文·[FROM: 68.100.]
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: shishishishi (shishishishi), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 12:20:31 2002), 站内信件

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 66.26.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 12:33:27 2002) WWW-POST


If it is under GPL or similiar licensing, you have the obligation to pass the
same license as imposed on the original program and provide source code when
they want it. However You can charge as much as you like.


【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: what about sourceforge.net projects? if i take one of them
: and .. let's say.. change the english text to chinese..
: can i sell it to chinese companies without telling them this
: is open sourced?
:
: what are my rights and what are my obligations if i did
: the above?
:
: thanks
:
:
: 【 在 devil (闲人) 的大作中提到: 】
: : 【 在 breeze (gaga) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : i know very little about open source.. i've heard of terms
: : : like GPL, etc.. which means if you modify the source code
: : : you have to contribute your changes back to open source?
: : : what about other licenses?
: : it depends on your work,
: : if you work for an equipment company, ie. you want port some
: : OS to your device and do not want to reveal tech details to
: : your competitors, I think BSD or Lesser GPL license is more
: : suitable for you, not sure whether embed Linux uses
: : Lesser GPL (I assume no), which as I understanding will not
: : ask you to open your source code if your work is based on
: : a Lesser GPL code/lib.
: : if your develop application, ie, no change to Linux kernal,
: : probably you have no need to worried about GPL, since almost
: : all GNU development librarys are under Lesser GPL, therefore,
: : you can still keep your code and sell the binary only.
: : : hypothetically, are peple allowed to take open source products
: : : and sell them for money (with and without modification)
: : : and if i modify open source code, and sell it, am i allowed to
: : : copyright it? any such licensing terms available?
: : : thanks.
:
:


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 15:04:03 2002), 站内信件

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: If it is under GPL or similiar licensing, you have the obligation to pass the
: same license as imposed on the original program and provide source code when
: they want it. However You can charge as much as you like.

I don't know if it has ever happened but I think if someone does charge
a huge price for "free software" in the form of distribution costs, it
may get sued as false advertising, akin to a dealer advertising a BMW
for free but charging a million dollars to deliver it to you.

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]
发信人: mast (疙瘩 ), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 21:44:48 2002) WWW-POST



You keep thinking "handling" as a "low level" packing and UPSing? go read
SHISHISHISHI's link which clearly says what are the distributing and selling.
If it involves plenty of work for "distributing" the software, including
rewriting/writing, testing, consolidating, certainly these can be charged,
just like you write a new software. what is wrong?  It is far from the false
advertising, maybe it is for you and anyone has some common sense will find
the truth.

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
: : If it is under GPL or similiar licensing, you have the obligation to pass
the
: : same license as imposed on the original program and provide source code
when
: : they want it. However You can charge as much as you like.
:
: I don't know if it has ever happened but I think if someone does charge
: a huge price for "free software" in the form of distribution costs, it
: may get sued as false advertising, akin to a dealer advertising a BMW
: for free but charging a million dollars to deliver it to you.
:


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 68.100.]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: licensing for open source projects
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Jul 28 22:11:27 2002) WWW-POST

【 在 mast (疙瘩 ) 的大作中提到: 】
:
:
: You keep thinking "handling" as a "low level" packing and UPSing? go read
: SHISHISHISHI's link which clearly says what are the distributing and
selling.
: If it involves plenty of work for "distributing" the software, including
: rewriting/writing, testing, consolidating, certainly these can be charged,
: just like you write a new software. what is wrong?  It is far from the false
: advertising, maybe it is for you and anyone has some common sense will find
: the truth.


calm down, will you?

so you contest that the link shishi quoted said that "distributing" software
includes rewriting/writing, testing, consolidating, etc.?

Are you sure you were reading the same link as I am? where in that article
does it say that?



--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 24.45.]

[返回]
赞助链接
未名交友
将您的链接放在这儿
 

Site Map - Contact Us - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

版权所有,未名空间(mitbbs.com),since 1996