GPL: Encoding & Re-selling?

[Tobias Jonch]

Hello,

I would like your opinion on two issues regarding GPL specifically (as opposed to the JED). 

First is the encoding of the files (e.g. Ioncube). 

The definition of source code, according to GPL, is: 

(§3 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html )

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."

Am I safe to assume that the first sentence is usually taken to mean that encoding isn't allowed (since the encoding isn't the preferred form), or can I just make up my own mind about what's preferred?

The second issue is in regard of re-selling software you obtained (legally), which is licensed under GPL - is it legal?

For now, I would like to keep the morality of either action out of the picture. I'm not trying to circumvent the license, merely trying to determine whether I'm going out on a limb in my school report.

Thanks for your time!

-Tobias

[Phil Snell]

Hi Tobias,

Some history on the ideas that lead to the creation of the GPL would be a nice thing for you to include in your report.  So much of what I'm seeing in these discussions is 'can we get away with this, and still be gpl?'.  This line of thinking is very much about attacking the spirit of the gpl, to circumvent it, to subvert it, and make it into something it was never meant to be.

Bottom line, if you are considering using GPL code in your business model, you should be doing so in full acceptance of the spirit of the license.  If your business model does not mesh with that spirit, don't use the code in the first place.

Somebody posted this video before, it's very informative.  Understanding the reasons behind the GPL can help a business to decide if it's a path they support or not.  They can also perhaps see benefits they had not initially considered, instead of only seeing how it would hinder them.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409

Cheers,
Phil

Tobias Jonch wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! General Development" group.
To post to this group, send an email to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-gene...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-general?hl=en-GB.

[Tobias Jonch]

Hi Phil,

Thanks for your reply.

I would like to add that if I wasn't writing this, I'd be writing something about the spirit of open source and the community of joomla ;-)

What I'm trying to achieve with these questions, is some sense of whether I got the facts straight. In a report like this, I really can't say 'you should use a model that doesn't encode, because that's the spirit of open source'. 

I need to back my recommendation up with some (more or less) hard facts, and I don't see anything wrong with considering the legality of it in this respect (or any other respect, for that matter).

Sorry if I seem a bit stand-offish (?), but this was exactly the discussion I was hoping to avoid here. Seems we've had it already recently. 

To reiterate: 

In your opinion, can I distribute my encoded software (e.g. Joomla component) without providing the source code?

In your opinion, can I sell CD's with Joomla on them? (should I be able)

Thanks,

Tobias

[Phil Snell]

In my opinion...

> In your opinion, can I distribute my encoded software (e.g. Joomla
> component) without providing the source code?

No. source code must be provided. Source code enabled users to modify,
and distribute under the same terms of GPL.

> In your opinion, can I sell CD's with Joomla on them? (should I be able)
>

Yes. If you allow the buyers to also use, modify, distribute under the
same terms of GPL.

[Sam Moffatt]

Going to be a brilliant school report, what university is running this
program? Seems quite interesting, would love to have an insight into
their program as a member of a university down under. Can you forward
me some details of your course leader/professor/examiner to moffatts
AT usq DOT edu DOT au ?

To answer the question no you can't distribute your encoded software
without providing the source. You can distribute encoded copies but
you have to provide the source code. There is no way around this.

You can sell a CD with Joomla! on it if you desire. Nobody has an
obligation to buy it off you but you are welcome to sell a CD with
Joomla! on it.

Sam Moffatt
http://pasamio.id.au

[Amy Stephen]

The GPL does not restrict encryption but it does stipulate source code
must be made available in an accessible way to those whom you
distributed encrypted code.

The GPL grants the right to redistribute. Nothing restricts us from
charging for distribution. In fact, Richard Stallman (father of the
GPL) earned a living off of distribution charges in the early days of
the free software "movement."

Here are the four freedoms of the GPL: (1) run the program, (2) study
the source code, and change it, (3) to redistribute exact copies, and
(4) to distribute copies of modified versions.

Within that structure, we can operate.

- Some try to add restrictions in the name of the "spirit of the GPL"
- like restricting encryption, for example. I have found it can get
pretty messy when you start thinking about the GPL as a crusade to
make the world a better place.

- Some try to remove freedoms (like restrict usage or distribution).
They are attracted to the free software concept but somehow think they
should be allowed to "protect their assets" and be able to take what
others provide.

- Some accept the challenge of preserving those 4 freedoms and
cleverly figure out a way to earn a living within those boundaries.

Hope that helps!

On Apr 11, 7:26 am, Tobias Jonch <joe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like your opinion on two issues regarding GPL specifically (as
> opposed to the JED).
>
> First is the encoding of the files (e.g. Ioncube).
>

> The definition of source co*de, according to GPL, is: *
> *(§3http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html)*
> *
> *
> *"**The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for

> making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code
> means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated
> interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
> installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source
> code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
> either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
> and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that

> component itself accompanies the executable."*
> *
> *
> *Am I safe to assume that the first sentence is usually taken to mean that

> encoding isn't allowed (since the encoding isn't the preferred form), or can

> I just make up my own mind about what's preferred?*
> *
> *
> *The second issue is in regard of re-selling software you obtained
> (legally), which is licensed under GPL - is it legal?*

[Phil Snell]

> - Some try to add restrictions in the name of the "spirit of the GPL"
> - like restricting encryption, for example. I have found it can get
> pretty messy when you start thinking about the GPL as a crusade to
> make the world a better place.

Good point. I wouldn't call it a crusade, but I think that it's purpose
is indeed to make the world a better place for developers and users. A
crusade implies a forced point of view. Nobody is forcing anyone to use
the gpl at all, they should only use it if it makes sense for them. I
agree that it's a messy when thinking about the spirit of the gpl,
because it brings us into the area of beliefs and values, and these can
make people emotional.

But at the same time, everyone will have an agenda, whether they want to
admit it or not. If a business is saying 'hey look, that gpl software
is popular, how can exploit that market of users?', I think that
business is likely to do anything they can to undermine the gpl at every
turn. They will constantly be dealing with these little nit picking
questions, like can I encode, how hard can I make it to find the source
code, what can I bundle with this to make it crippleware, etc, etc..
because they are running against the grain of what gpl really means.

In my opinion it's just as messy to be finding ways to avoid thinking
about the spirit of the gpl. By avoiding that area of discussion, the
mess is only sublimated into the endless questions of 'but can I...'.

Phil

[Tobias Jonch]

Thanks all for your opinions. I'm *very* glad to have them, since I apparently got the encoding part wrong.

Phil, I see your point with the endless list of 'Can I ..', but I'm not sure the list is so long after all (least not that long ;-)

Look at it this way, if we could manage to answer those questions, put them in a central place we could reference, we wouldn't have to discuss these questions, and could get on with making the most with what we've got.

I don't understand, to this end, why OSM doesn't try one of these cases. I think we'd come a long way in settings things straight if we had a court ruling, creating some precedence on the matter.

Thanks again!

Tobias

[Phil Snell]

Thank you for taking the time to consider these points of view. 

I think the length of the list would be directly proportional to how far a business plans to deviate from the spirit of the gpl.  As somebody who makes my living offering support for gpl software, I'm not at all saying that there is not a balance to be found.  My point is that a business will have a much easier time by first understanding the spirit of the gpl, and then finding out how they can fit into that. 

The extreme opposite example of a proprietary software model trying to wedge it's way into a gpl based community market will be the one with endless list of 'but can i...'  because they are completely 180 degrees from the spirit of the gpl.

Phil

[Amy Stephen]

Tobias -

Have you read what the four freedoms are of the GPL?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

* Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
* Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and
change it to make it do what you wish.
* Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help
your neighbor.
* Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your
improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that
the whole community benefits.

The problem with JED publishing a definitive list of business plans is
that such a list would immediately begin limiting developers. All we
have to do as developers is comply with the four freedoms. How
developers do so is up to their creativity and imagination and the
free market.

You can charge for support. You can charge for distribution and not
make things easy to download (Look at MySQL's strategy or RedHat and
the secondary market around that work.) You can charge to customize
software for someone's needs and it's not crippleware.

This video helps highlight the danger of believing in the spirit of
the GPL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW87vxM11tw - That's Richard
Stallman (the singer) and he originated the GPL Look into him, too,
including the time he was detained for wearing a tinfoil hat (yes, to
protect himself from the government reading his mind) at a UN
conference. He's very bright - but quirky. ;-)

Also, check out Eben Moglen - he's got a lot of Youtube videos that
are very interesting. I saw one once that I can't find again on
strategies for bringing compliance to the GPL. The SFLC's goal is
compliance, not lawsuits, and thus far they have managed to do so
without court decisions. (Although there certainly have been plenty of
fines.)

A couple of years ago, it looked like they were going to head into the
US courtroom for the first time for the BusyBox infringement, but it
was averted. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/sep/20/busybox/
.

Then, last year in December, they filed again for busybox, naming the
original defendent and also Best Buy, JVC, and Samsung. So, it's on
again and might end up clarifying boundaries in the US if it's not
settled out of court again. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/

Here's a good resource from the SFLC called "A Practical Guide to GPL
Compliance" which gets into issues, such as distribution.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html#x1-230006

[Oli Griffiths]

Hi Amy,

We're not suggesting a "definitive list" of business models that are
compatible with the JED TOS, but more a starter guide of "These business
models all work AND comply with the JED TOS, here are some examples of
companies making a living from Commercial Joomla extensions". We're not
saying that the JED should say "This is a list of business models and you
can only use one on this list" that would just be silly as it clearly
undermines the 4 freedoms of the GPL.

Oli

Contact Organic Development:
Telephone: 0845 869 765
Web: http://www.organic-development.com
Email: in...@organic-development.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/growwithorganic

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Organic Development Ltd.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone.
Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.

[Amy Stephen]

Very good, Oli. Thanks for clarifying. I just don't want more
regulation on devs than is absolutely necessary. Getting started
learning material is just fine - I'd rather see it come from other
devs than JED because these things sometimes have a way of becoming
law - but I am relieved to hear your clarification.

On Apr 12, 2:47 am, Oli Griffiths <o...@organic-development.com>
wrote:

> Hi Amy,
>
> We're not suggesting a "definitive list" of business models that are
> compatible with the JED TOS, but more a starter guide of "These business
> models all work AND comply with the JED TOS, here are some examples of
> companies making a living from Commercial Joomla extensions". We're not
> saying that the JED should say "This is a list of business models and you
> can only use one on this list" that would just be silly as it clearly
> undermines the 4 freedoms of the GPL.
>
> Oli
>

> On 12/04/2010 04:41, "Amy Stephen" <amystep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tobias -
>
> > Have you read what the four freedoms are of the GPL?
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
>
> >     * Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
> >     * Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and
> > change it to make it do what you wish.
> >     * Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help
> > your neighbor.
> >     * Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your
> > improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that
> > the whole community benefits.
>
> > The problem with JED publishing a definitive list of business plans is
> > that such a list would immediately begin limiting developers. All we
> > have to do as developers is comply with the four freedoms. How
> > developers do so is up to their creativity and imagination and the
> > free market.
>
> > You can charge for support. You can charge for distribution and not
> > make things easy to download (Look at MySQL's strategy or RedHat and
> > the secondary market around that work.) You can charge to customize
> > software for someone's needs and it's not crippleware.
>
> > This video helps highlight the danger of believing in the spirit of

> > the GPLhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW87vxM11tw- That's Richard

> > Stallman (the singer) and he originated the GPL Look into him, too,
> > including the time he was detained for wearing a tinfoil hat (yes, to
> > protect himself from the government reading his mind) at a UN
> > conference. He's very bright - but quirky. ;-)
>
> > Also, check out Eben Moglen - he's got a lot of Youtube videos that
> > are very interesting. I saw one once that I can't find again on
> > strategies for bringing compliance to the GPL. The SFLC's goal is
> > compliance, not lawsuits, and thus far they have managed to do so
> > without court decisions. (Although there certainly have been plenty of
> > fines.)
>
> > A couple of years ago, it looked like they were going to head into the
> > US courtroom for the first time for the BusyBox infringement, but it

> > was averted.http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/sep/20/busybox/

> > .
>
> > Then, last year in December, they filed again for busybox, naming the
> > original defendent and also Best Buy, JVC, and Samsung. So, it's on
> > again and might end up clarifying boundaries in the US if it's not
> > settled out of court again.
> >http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
>
> > Here's a good resource from the SFLC called "A Practical Guide to GPL
> > Compliance" which gets into issues, such as distribution.

> >http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html#x...

>
> Contact Organic Development:
> Telephone:      0845 869 765
> Web:            http://www.organic-development.com

> Email:          i...@organic-development.com