enfuse license

[Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola)]

Hi all,

I have recently recommended this tool to a friend:

http://photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php

He answered me back saying the tool is not totally free. If you want to enable all features and use it with images bigger than 500px you need to pay something.

So, the question is, isn't enfuse a GPL licensed tool? And being so, wouldn't them be enforced to release their tool under the same license, for free and make the source available?

Thanks,

Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola)
http://cartola.org/360
http://www.panoforum.com.br/

[Stefan Peter]

Dear Cartola

On 14.10.2013 20:28, Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have recently recommended this tool to a friend:
>
> http://photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php
>
> He answered me back saying the tool is not totally free. If you want to
> enable all features and use it with images bigger than 500px you need to
> pay something.
>
> So, the question is, isn't enfuse a GPL licensed tool? And being so,
> wouldn't them be enforced to release their tool under the same license,
> for free and make the source available?

I'm not a layer, but here is how I see it anyhow:

Yes and no. Redistributing a GPL licensed application forces you to
adhere to the GPL. This generally means that you have to provide the
source code and all changes you have implemented. And you have to grant
the right to compile and modify the application to your "customer", too.
However, there is no obligation in the GPL that you have to do this for
free. Actually, you can charge whatever you want to for providing binaries.

On the other hand, look at what this guy provides;
"LR/Enfuse is a Lightroom plugin that allows you to blend multiple
exposures together directly from within Lightroom by using the open
source Enfuse application."

Here, you are charged for a lightroom (which is nor GPL, neither open
source) plugin that allows you to use a GPL licensed application
(enfuse). So, the fee you (or your friend) is expected to pay does not
cover the GPL'ed enfuse functionality but the integration thereof into a
closed source application.

And even If this guy would charge you for a compiled version of enfuse
for the operating system of your choice, there is nothing in the GPL to
prevent him from doing so as long as he adheres to the GPL, meaning that
he has to offer you the option to get the sources (and compile them
yourself) including all the changes he implemented.

It would be another case if this guy
o would sell an application containing a GPL licensed library
(say libpano, for example) without providing the source code to
his application
o would sell a GPL licensed application without providing
the source code including his modifications

In essence, GPL is about 'free as in in freedom', not 'free as in beer'.

Again, I'm not a lawyer (thanks God), but this is how I see the GPL issue.

Regards

Stefan Peter




--
"In summary, I think you are trying to solve a problem that may not
need to be solved, using a tool that is not meant to solve it, without
understanding what is causing your problems and without knowing how
the tool actually works in the first place :)"
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky on the backuppc mailing list

[Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola)]

Thank you Stefan.

One point I was in doubt was that one you pointed at the end. If he used a library to make a new tool, then he would need to open the source. Well, I didn't find the source code in the site, but anyway, the license "donationware" looks pretty honest to me, mainly because he doesn't fix any amount.

Thanks,

Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola)
http://cartola.org/360
http://www.panoforum.com.br/

2013/10/14 Stefan Peter <s_p...@swissonline.ch>

[Stefan Peter]

On 14.10.2013 21:35, Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola) wrote:
> Thank you Stefan.
>
> One point I was in doubt was that one you pointed at the end. If he used
> a library to make a new tool, then he would need to open the source.

Yes, this is true. But he didn't use a library, he implemented a plugin
that collected the vommand line parameters required for the job from
whatever information he had and then called an external, stand alone
enfuse binary to do the job.

This enfuse binary actually counts as a stand alone executable (and, of
course, has to adhere to the GPL because it is licensed so), but it is
not linked to the plugin. Therfore, the plugin is not "tainted" by the GPL.

And even if it where, there is no obligation in the GPL to provide a
binary for free: You can charge whetever you want to for the binary (or
the distribution of the changed source code), but you must provide the
source code for your binary and allow third parties to use them and
build upon them without further obligations (apart from the GPL) or
additional license fees.

This, by the way, is the reason why coperates hate the GPL: You _can_
charge your customers, but you don't have a monopoly because you have to
provide the sources, too. This allows any competitor to build a modified
(fixed?) version of your binary because they get access to the sources.

Again , I'm not a laywer, and I'm prepared to stand corrected by whoever
has managed to get her/his head around the subtilities of licensing in
general.

> Well, I didn't find the source code in the site, but anyway, the license
> "donationware" looks pretty honest to me, mainly because he doesn't fix
> any amount.

Yes, I agree with the donationware aspect here. However, when taking a
look at the site mentioned, I can not help to mention a couple of points:
o there is no mentioning of the GPL origin of the various enblend
binary variants offered for download
o there are no version informations of these binaries
o therfore, it is not possible to download the appropriate
source from the official locations, even if those would
have been mentioned
o there is no link to the sources used for the binaries
offered
o there is no attribution for the ingenious developpers
of enblend (which is not requested by the GPL, but should
be common sense by any SW developper worth his grain of salt)

I don't know this developper, and she/he may may have a seperate license
agreement with the developpers of enblend that is not GPL based and
therefore frees her/him from the requirements of the GPL. But in this
case, I'd expect at least a mentioning of the license (and the origins
of the software).

In the end I have to agree that this offer at least leaves a very bad
taste in your mouth.

Again, IMNAL. But you can't hang this developper because she/he asks for
a donation on GPL licence grounds, from my point of view.

[Rogier Wolff]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:59:09PM +0200, Stefan Peter wrote:
> Yes, I agree with the donationware aspect here. However, when taking a
> look at the site mentioned, I can not help to mention a couple of points:
> o there is no mentioning of the GPL origin of the various enblend
> binary variants offered for download

The GPL recommends that this is displayed on startup, right?

> o there are no version informations of these binaries

Annoying, but legal.

> o therfore, it is not possible to download the appropriate
> source from the official locations, even if those would
> have been mentioned
> o there is no link to the sources used for the binaries
> offered

In the modern world, just putting the sources on your website for
everybody to download is the "easiest" thing to do. The GPL however
was written when "the web" didn't quite exist as it does today.

So the GPL requires that you provide THOSE who obtain (buy?) the
binaries from you with the sources. You can even charge a handling fee
for putting the CD in the mail.

The GPL /then/ allows the customer to put it, modified or not, on the
web. So the business plan of becoming an "enfuse reseller" will
quickly grind to a halt as people find others providing sources (and
binaries) for a lower price (zero).

I've sold collections of GPL software for big amounts. They wanted me
to put things together, have a single "responsible person" etc
etc. And they could've put the whole thing on the web, preventing me
from selling the product again (which I did once or twice at big
intervals -> I had to redo lots of things).

> Again, IMNAL. But you can't hang this developper because she/he asks
> for a donation on GPL licence grounds, from my point of view.

Ditto!

Roger.

--
** R.E....@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 **
** Delftechpark 26 2628 XH Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike
Phil, this plan just might work.

[Fernando Chaves]

Hi,
Did you tried EnfuseGui?
http://software.bergmark.com/enfusegui/Main.html
Regards,
Fernando Chaves

[Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola)]

Well, I haven't tried any, but have recommended many, including this one and Image Fuser, also for Mac. I usually use the command line tool :)

Thanks!

Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola)
http://cartola.org/360
http://www.panoforum.com.br/

2013/10/14 Fernando Chaves <fernc...@gmail.com>

--
A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hugin-ptx+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/c61a000a-6faa-47e6-9470-20a3801f4d1d%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.