Source code for TiVO
Richard Stallman
called a TiVO, which might come with a GNU/Linux system on it.
Is anyone in a position to check whether they are distributing
sources, as the GPL says they must? I have no reason as of now to
think that they are failing to do so, but companies new to the
community often make mistakes in this area. If they have done so,
we may as well get it corrected now rather than later.
If you can get access to one and find out, please tell me
what you find.
Christopher B. Browne
posted:
Their web site indicates, at <http://www.tivo.com/what/how2.html>,
that they system uses
"Advanced processor: High performance Power PC with RTOS"
That's rather limited technical documentation, but at least *suggests*
that the kernel in use isn't Linux.
The jobs that they are hiring for indicate a need for people with
experience writing "UNIX device drivers." If what they really want
are people with experience with Linux device drivers, it would make
more sense to say so.
Anyhoo, from what the way it's described, it certainly doesn't sound
like it's terribly programmable. Supposing it *does* use Linux, it is
more likely that it would be properly characterized as a "TiVo System
using Linux" than as a "GNU System using Linux."
On the other hand, they *are* looking for engineers experienced with
GNU tools, but this appears rather more related to the "server side"
work, involving databases and the likes...
--
REALITY is a mescaline deficiency.
cbbr...@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Mark Christensen
Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> wrote in message
news:1999081416...@wijiji.santafe.edu...
> I've heard that there is a cheap kind of box now on sale
> called a TiVO, which might come with a GNU/Linux system on it.
>
> Is anyone in a position to check whether they are distributing
> sources, as the GPL says they must?
They don't have to distribute the sources with the machine, they can just
make them publicly available, either on CD by request, or by posting them on
the internet. Since the machine itself seems to be almost entirely
non-configurable/non-programmable, so supplying the sources to every end
user may not be useful. But the source does need to be available if they
are to comply with the terms of the license agreement of the software they
include
>I have no reason as of now to
> think that they are failing to do so, but companies new to the
> community often make mistakes in this area.
Even if they are new to the Linux community, they ought to have lawyers who
look at the licensing issues surrounding their distribution of software, and
the GPL is easy enough to understand.
nobody
>I've heard that there is a cheap kind of box now on sale
>called a TiVO, which might come with a GNU/Linux system on it.
The source of this allegation is none other than Linus Torvalds himself.
Let me quote from the note I first sent FSF.
====
Yesterday I read Torvald's 99 BOF USENIX address
(cf. http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_program.html?program_id=17)
in which he claimed the digital "broadcatching" VCR people at
TiVO (sic?) use GNU/Linux:
"You know about the TeeVO settop boxes. They run Linux
although they don't say so in their commercials."
Do you think they could RESIST tweaking the source code?
If so, they assume GPL oligations, don't they? And if so,
don't they have to release the modified source code?
Could that be why they DENY using GNU/Linux?
=====
Of course it is possible they use GNU/Linux less invasively and
qualify for the LGPL instead. Or maybe Torvalds is all wet! As I
understand the licenses, use on an embedded device does not
relieve one of the obligations concerning open source code - but
then, the typical people who buy such black boxes are unlikely
to WANT the code, especially since there is no way for them
to exploit it with the hardware they bought. (Potential competitors
and "extenders" buying the gadget are another thing of course...)
Ron Feigenblatt
TiVo Webmaster
Yes, we use Linux on a PPC.
All our source modifications are available on CD. You may acquire a CD
by sending $24.95 to:
TiVo, Inc.
Attn: Richard Bullwinkle
894 Ross Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
We state so in our manual, as required by the GNU Public License.
Please feel to address any questions to me.
Regards,
Richard Bullwinkle
TiVo Webmaster
webm...@tivo.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Decklin Foster
> All our source modifications are available on CD. You may acquire a CD
> by sending $24.95 to:
It costs you $24.95 to burn a CD and mail it to me? I'm not sure I
believe that. Also, why is it not on an FTP server? If it is, *please*
correct me.
TiVo Webmaster
even there I fudge a bit. What it costs me to burn a CD you'll never
know. :)
We have chosen not to post the code on the net at this time, but
according to the GPL, you may purchase the CD and legally post it for
all.
Cheers,
Richard Bullwinkle
TiVo Webmaster
In article <slrn7rbp6v....@c26469-a.clnvl1.ct.home.com>,
Paul Eggert
>But I also find it hard to believe that it costs you that much to burn
>a CD.
I think the charge is not unreasonable for an organization that isn't
set up to burn and ship CDs, and probably doesn't do it very efficiently.
(Mail clerks in Sunnyvale are not cheap these days. :-)
Christopher B. Browne
posted:
>
>Yes, we use Linux on a PPC.
Much in the way of RT extensions?
>All our source modifications are available on CD. You may acquire a CD
>by sending $24.95 to:
>
>TiVo, Inc.
>Attn: Richard Bullwinkle
>894 Ross Drive
>Sunnyvale, CA 94089
>
>We state so in our manual, as required by the GNU Public License.
Cool.
>Please feel to address any questions to me.
Can we call you "Rocky"? Or will we find our mailboxes filled with
hatemail? :-)
--
"Sigh. I like to think it's just the Linux people who want to be on the
`leading edge' so bad they walk right off the precipice."
-- Craig E. Groeschel
cbbr...@hex.net- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Alexandre Oliva
> In article <slrn7rbp6v....@c26469-a.clnvl1.ct.home.com>,
> dec...@home.com (Decklin Foster) wrote:
>> TiVo Webmaster <webm...@tivo.com> writes:
>>
>> > All our source modifications are available on CD. You may acquire
> a CD
>> > by sending $24.95 to:
>>
>> It costs you $24.95 to burn a CD and mail it to me? I'm not sure I
>> believe that. Also, why is it not on an FTP server? If it is, *please*
>> correct me.
> Sorry Decklin, I don't disclose my salery to anyone except my wife, and
> even there I fudge a bit. What it costs me to burn a CD you'll never
> know. :)
We must assume it is $24.95 or more, since the GPL says:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
[...]
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
^^^^
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
But I also find it hard to believe that it costs you that much to burn
a CD.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva IC-Unicamp, Bra[sz]il
oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,guarana.{org,com}} aoliva@{acm.org,computer.org}
oliva@{gnu.org,kaffe.org,{egcs,sourceware}.cygnus.com,samba.org}
** I may forward mail about projects to mailing lists; please use them
Christopher B. Browne
posted:
>On Aug 14, 1999, TiVo Webmaster <webm...@tivo.com> wrote:
>We must assume it is $24.95 or more, since the GPL says:
... Elided ...
>But I also find it hard to believe that it costs you that much to burn
>a CD.
I don't find it at all difficult to believe.
If he has to burn CD's individually, package them, and stick them in
the mail, then we're talking about Tivo paying for:
a) His salary for the time spent on burning and setting up distribution
of the CD,
b) The buck or two for the CD blank,
c) Possibly a couple bucks for postage,
d) Wear and tear on the CD burner.
The notion that a) will cost enough time to cost Tivo time worth $25 is
*entirely* believable, considering that they are located in Silicon
Valley.
Remember, we're not talking about them doing a "production run" where
the price per CD drops to less than $1...
--
"I'm guilty of a lot of things, but I didn't ever do that.''
-- Bill Clinton, on why he had astroturf lining the back of his pickup
truck
cbbr...@hex.net- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Ben Pfaff
We must assume it is $24.95 or more, since the GPL says:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
[...]
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
^^^^
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
But I also find it hard to believe that it costs you that much to burn
a CD.
First, the clause above only applies if you actually bought a TiVO.
Has anyone in this thread done so?
Second, as others have pointed out, it is entirely possible that
burning a CD does cost that much.
--
"How could this be a problem in a country
where we have Intel and Microsoft?"
--Al Gore on Y2K
TiVo Webmaster
> Much in the way of RT extensions?
I'm not sure... I am a webmaster. Once upon a time I was lead QE on
TiVo, but still rarely looked at OS code. I will check it out and get
back to you.
As for the cost, I find it quite amusing that folks have time to debate
such things. So far I have burned 4, and people have requested 2.
This is not a form of income for for TiVo. It doesn't show up on our
business plans!
If you guys want to help out with the burning, we are definitely
hiring. Send resumes to emplo...@tivo.com.
> Can we call you "Rocky"? Or will we find our mailboxes filled with
> hatemail? :-)
Finally, you can call me Rocky... but I don't get it. Is that a
reference to Stallone movie? I've never heard that before. :)
-Richard Bullwinkle
TiVo Webmaster
TiVo Webmaster
Christopher B. Browne
posted:
>
>I'm not sure... I am a webmaster. Once upon a time I was lead QE on
>TiVo, but still rarely looked at OS code. I will check it out and get
>back to you.
>
>As for the cost, I find it quite amusing that folks have time to debate
>such things. So far I have burned 4, and people have requested 2.
>This is not a form of income for for TiVo. It doesn't show up on our
>business plans!
Color me unsurprised...
I doubt that there will be more than $200 in revenue from this. Any
resemblance to profits being illusory, of course :-).
>If you guys want to help out with the burning, we are definitely
>hiring. Send resumes to emplo...@tivo.com.
>
>> Can we call you "Rocky"? Or will we find our mailboxes filled with
>> hatemail? :-)
>
>Finally, you can call me Rocky... but I don't get it. Is that a
>reference to Stallone movie? I've never heard that before. :)
Rocky & Bullwinkle, of course :-).
--
"While the Melissa license is a bit unclear, Melissa aggressively
encourages free distribution of its source code." -- Kevin Dalley
<ke...@seti.org>
cbbr...@hex.net- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
TiVo Webmaster
> >Finally, you can call me Rocky... but I don't get it. Is that a
> >reference to Stallone movie? I've never heard that before. :)
>
> Rocky & Bullwinkle, of course :-).
I was joking. Jay Ward and his gang from Frostbite Falls have been the
source of every joke aimed at me since I was 4. I was mostly pointing
out the particular lack of creativity in this jab. I could launch into
a list of 20 better cuts, like Steve Martin in Roxanne, but right now
my children, Boris and Natasha, need to go to bed.
Cheers,
-RB
Tim Smith
>Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> wrote in message
>> sources, as the GPL says they must?
>
>They don't have to distribute the sources with the machine, they can just
>make them publicly available, either on CD by request, or by posting them on
>the internet. Since the machine itself seems to be almost entirely
> Even if they are new to the Linux community, they ought to have lawyers who
>look at the licensing issues surrounding their distribution of software, and
>the GPL is easy enough to understand.
If the GPL is so easy to understand, how come you had to post a correction
to Richard Stallman, who is the author of the GPL? :-)
--Tim Smith
nobody
>Alexandre Oliva <ol...@dcc.unicamp.br> writes:
> We must assume it is $24.95 or more, since the GPL says:
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> ^^^^
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
>Second, as others have pointed out, it is entirely possible that
>burning a CD does cost that much.
This reminds me of the fellow who wanted to tax-deduct the cost of buying
a luxury yacht holding a classroom in which he studied art history as an
"educational EXPENSE", because he was an art dealer.
"Cost", huh? I guess if it "costs" me a BILLION dollars to create a CD
(I only consider Warren Buffet qualified for such work, and insist he perform
in the display window of Macy's, in the buff) you had better PAY me that
or I am NOT OBLIGED to sell you the source code under the GPL.
Don't laugh! Such is today's weasel world of the law...
In fairness, I suppose if TiVO were REALLY being Open Source jerks,
they would try to charge $1,000 or $1,000,000 for a CD.
Ron Feigenblatt
P.S. By the way, this issue is now being "Slash-Dotted" at:
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/08/16/1333228.shtml
See the thread starting:
"Tivo not releasing source ?
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 16, @01:56PM EDT (#9)
how come TiVo has not released the source to the modifications they made to
the kernel ? They released a product with linux embedded - shouldnt they
release the source ?"
Ed Carter
>
>
> But I also find it hard to believe that it costs you that much to burn
> a CD.
Don't forget any labor costs they'd incur by burning you a CD. Also, if
they're using one of these IDE burners I've seen that basically requires you
to stop using the computer for anything else to avoid errors in the CD, $25
is a pretty reasonable price.
Mark Christensen
Tim Smith <t...@halcyon.com> wrote in message
news:7p9th4$qvq$1...@52-a-usw.rb1.blv.nwnexus.net...
Obviously RMS knows the GPL, but those reading his note might not.. Just
wanted to make it clear that they were actually in compliance with the code.
And to remind RMS that even "suits" new to the GNU/Linux community have
standard practices which ought bring them into compliance with the GPL. ;-)
Mark Christensen
count as part of the cost of "physically performing source distribution."
The wording here might mean that the costs can be no more than the sum of
the costs of the medium plus the cost of shipping. The wording is ambiguous
enough that I'd avoid even the possibility of impropriety.
Also, you mention that the clause "only applies if you actually bought the
TiVO." This is false. The clause specifically mentions that the source
code must be made available to "any third party." First word, "any,"
meaning ANY -- nobody is excluded. Then comes "third party," meaning
someone not involved in the initial transaction (the sale of the software).
Get it, anybody. Put it together, and you get anybody, even those who did
not buy the software, has a right to request a free copy of the source code.
Yours
Mark
Ben Pfaff <pfaf...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:87btc9x...@pfaffben.user.msu.edu...
> Alexandre Oliva <ol...@dcc.unicamp.br> writes:
>
> We must assume it is $24.95 or more, since the GPL says:
>
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
> [...]
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> ^^^^
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily used for software interchange; or,
>
> But I also find it hard to believe that it costs you that much to burn
> a CD.
>
> First, the clause above only applies if you actually bought a TiVO.
> Has anyone in this thread done so?
>
Mike Coleman
> It costs you $24.95 to burn a CD and mail it to me? I'm not sure I
> believe that.
If you believe it costs significantly less than that, the thing to do would be
to go into business selling cheaper copies yourself. Of course, there might
be little demand, even at the cheaper price, but if so, that probably means
TiVO's amortized cost is *more* than $25.
--Mike
Isaac
<wwwl...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Also, you mention that the clause "only applies if you actually bought the
>TiVO." This is false. The clause specifically mentions that the source
>code must be made available to "any third party." First word, "any,"
>meaning ANY -- nobody is excluded. Then comes "third party," meaning
>someone not involved in the initial transaction (the sale of the software).
>Get it, anybody. Put it together, and you get anybody, even those who did
>not buy the software, has a right to request a free copy of the source code.
>
someone who has gotten one of the written offers that get distributed with
the binaries.
In other words, if I get a binary with a written offer to provide source
code on demand, I can give or sell my binary to a third party by providing
him with the written offer so I don't violate the gpl.
The original distributor then provides source to anyone, even a third
party who presents a written offer. Of course you don't necessarily
need to buy a TiVO to get a copy of the written offer, but why botherr?
The first person to get a copy of the sources is allowed to post them.
I'm sure this interpretation was confirmed with RMS in the past. The
last time I remember it being discussed in this forum involved
a situation where someone wanted copies of the source for an
alpha version of an Ada compiler that was being distributed in binary
only to customers. Since he didn't have a written offer, he wasn't
eligible to get the original distributor to give him the source.
Isaac
ErikLBrown
is a good thing. However, there is another issue that people should be
concerned about: privacy.
There is a show called "Digital Duo" that reviews computer technology. The two
hosts are Stephen Manes, who writes for both Forbes Magazine and PC World, and
Susan Gregory Thomas, who writes for both U.S. News & World Report and New
Woman. The TiVO name sounded familiar, so I did some searching through their
show description archives. I found the show I was looking for at the following
URL:
http://www.digitalduo.com/205_dig.html
Here is the next to last paragraph relating to TiVO and its competitor, Replay
TV:
"But the biggest difference between TiVo and Replay relates to privacy. TiVo
keeps track of your preferences, like those thumbs-up and thumbs-down
notations, and sells them to advertisers. Although they promise they won't tie
any information to you personally unless you agree, Steve thinks it's downright
creepy. He calls it "The Profiler." Susie can't imagine anyone volunteering to
give up all that information. Replay pledges it won't do any such tracking or
profiling, and since it's not in cahoots with advertisers, it gives you that
great commercial-skip button. TiVo doesn't."
So, here are a couple of questions: is the setting of personal program
preferences done on the local machine and then downloaded to the TiVO site, or
must you be online to select? Suppose the personal preferences are set on the
local machine. What would be the legal/technical issues involved in obtaining
the source code from TiVO and modifying it so that TiVO thinks all you ever
watch is the Weather Channel? I'm sure this is just an academic question since
the people who read this newsgroup probably don't have any problems setting
their current VCRs, but it's nice to think about.
Erik Brown
www.oomecs.org - a free (as in freedom) computer hardware/software architecture
TiVo Webmaster
irresponsible to slanderous. The two "journalists" never asked about
or read TiVo's Privacy Policy. You can do that for yourself here:
http://www.tivo.com/care/privacy.html.
Pledges and promises are fine -- show me in writing!
TiVo has the only Privacy Policy in the PTV industry. We are quite
proud of it, because we value your privacy as much as you do.
If you have any questions about how we technically and ethically
protect your privacy, please feel free to ask me.
Regards,
Richard Bullwinkle
TiVo Webmaster
In article <19990818105531...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
Stephen Clark
Decklin Foster wrote:
> TiVo Webmaster <webm...@tivo.com> writes:
>
> > All our source modifications are available on CD. You may acquire a CD
> > by sending $24.95 to:
>
> It costs you $24.95 to burn a CD and mail it to me? I'm not sure I
> believe that. Also, why is it not on an FTP server? If it is, *please*
> correct me.
Well if you think $24.95 is a lot look what the Free Software Foundation
charges for a CD.
CD-ROMs in ISO 9660 format
Texinfo source for each GNU manual is packaged with the program on CD-ROM or
by FTP. CD-ROMs do not include
printed software users' manuals.
GNU Source Code CD-ROM set, 14th edition (August 1999), with X11R6.4 and GCC
2.9.5 :
____ @ $280 = $ ______ for corporations and other organizations.
____ @ $ 70 = $ ______ for individuals.
How about them apples?!!!
Steve
Ben Pfaff
Decklin Foster wrote:
> TiVo Webmaster <webm...@tivo.com> writes:
>
> > All our source modifications are available on CD. You may acquire a CD
> > by sending $24.95 to:
>
> It costs you $24.95 to burn a CD and mail it to me? I'm not sure I
> believe that. Also, why is it not on an FTP server? If it is, *please*
> correct me.
Well if you think $24.95 is a lot look what the Free Software Foundation
charges for a CD.
[...$70 or $280...]
Different situation. They're not saying that's their cost for burning
and sending it. In fact, last I checked, they were pretty up front
about it being about making money; read the web page.
--
Peter Seebach on managing engineers:
"It's like herding cats, only most of the engineers are already
sick of laser pointers."
Stephen Clark
"
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not
charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as
little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as
they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
The word ``free'' has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to
freedom or to price. When we speak of ``free software'', we're talking about
freedom, not price. (Think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer''.) Specifically,
it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and
redistribute the program with or without changes.
..."
Steve
Peter Seebach
Stephen Clark <scl...@paradigm4.com> wrote:
>Well if you think $24.95 is a lot look what the Free Software Foundation
>charges for a CD.
That's okay, you're allowed to sell software. You just have to make the
source available cheaper - and it's free for download.
>How about them apples?!!!
I heard a guy on the radio who does subtitles trying to explain how hard
it was to translate this.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Stephen Clark
Paul D. Smith
sc> So FSF is selling the source then? What software are they selling?
You're missing the point under discussion.
No one is saying that you can't sell GPL'd programs for as much as you
want. The GPL makes no restrictions on that.
What the GPL _does_ say is that you can't provide the program without
source, then sell the source for more than the basic cost of
distributing it. IOW, you can't avoid the GPL requirements by selling
the source, but only for $10,000 or whatever.
The FSF doesn't do this: they sell the entire thing for $280. That's
completely different, and completely valid. The GPL isn't trying to
keep people from making money, it's trying to make sure people using the
program also have the source code for it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psm...@baynetworks.com> Network Management Development
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
Stephen Clark
Quoting from the link below
"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not
charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as
little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost. "
For any one that thinks $24.95 is to much, they are perfectly legal in obtaining a
copy for $24.95 and then redistributing it for whatever fee they can get.
Please refer to the following link for further edification.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Steve
Christopher Browne
>Quoting from the link below
>
>"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not
>charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as
>little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost. "
>
>For any one that thinks $24.95 is to much, they are perfectly legal
>in obtaining a copy for $24.95 and then redistributing it for
>whatever fee they can get.
>
>Please refer to the following link for further edification.
>
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
>
>Steve
This link may provide illuminating information, but is not relevant to
the context, which is that of what is the proper interpretation of GPL
Section 3(b), which reads:
"b. Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a
medium customarily used for software interchange"
This section, talking about the requirement to make source code
available, indicates some sort of limitation on the amount that may be
charged for access to source code.
It uses the phrase "cost of physically performing source
*distribution,*" which indicates that this is clearly not limited to
the cost of media, but may also include "distribution" costs.
- Nobody is going to argue about the cost of the envelope and postage
to get the software sent out.
- There seems to be some controversy over whether the costs of
making the copy may be reimbursed.
I figure that $25 represents an estimate of the cost of having an
(expensive) Silicon Valley engineer burn a CD and do the paperwork
required to get the CD in the mail. And would be willing defy anyone
to *really* analyze this and come up with a forcibly *more accurate*
number.
It is, of course, a waste of time to do so, as it would be easy to
spend time worth vastly more than the net pricing of all the source
code CDs the folks at TiVo are likely to sell.
If TiVo was charging $200 for the source code CDs, there might be
reason to think this high. $25 seems not outrageous, and we could
readily spend hours analyzing to death the potential "misallocation"
of perhaps up to $100, the likely maximum amount that they're liable
to get in revenues from this.
Methinks there are more useful fish to fry.
--
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
-- Michael A. Petonic
cbbr...@ntlug.org- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Christopher Browne
wrote:
GCC, Emacs, Fileutils, Binutils, GAWK, ... ad infinitum ...
--
nothing
cbbr...@ntlug.org- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Stephen Clark
I believe it is relevant. The section 3b you are quoting is also referred to in the
page I am referencing, it has to do where binaries are being released without the
complete source code, is that the case with TiVO? If not then they can charge what
they wish according to RMS.
Regards,
Steve
" Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (20k characters)
(GNU GPL)
has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free
software.
You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you,
and the
marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a
copy.
The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the
corresponding
complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide
source code
on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would
be able set a
fee too large for anyone to pay--such as, a billion dollars--and thus pretend to
release source
code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for
source, to ensure
the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification
for limiting
distribution fees, so we do not limit them. "
ErikLBrown
>http://www.tivo.com/care/privacy.html.
>Pledges and promises are fine -- show me in writing!
That's not bad. If these materials your statement mentions are clearly visible
and readable, then I would have to say the Digital Duo did you a disservice in
not mentioning that users have the option of disallowing even anonymous
profiling. On the other hand, if these terms are presented in tiny, light grey
print at the bottom or on the back of something else, the way the true terms of
credit card offers usually are, then I think you have less reason to complain.
If you state that the materials are presented so as to draw the user's
attention to these options, I'll take your word for it.
>TiVo has the only Privacy Policy in the PTV industry. We are quite
>proud of it, because we value your privacy as much as you do.
If you valued my privacy as much as I do, you would not have made your product
capable of any feedback to you whatsoever regarding what my preferences are.
However, I freely admit that I may be on the extreme paranoid end of the
privacy spectrum. If you wanted to meet me half way, you would make
disallowing the sharing of any personal information the default. Then you
could put in a big splashy ad in with the materials that come with your product
stating the benefits of profiling. People who wanted to opt-in could then send
you the form. I suspect that you wouldn't get very many takers, but who knows?
Erik Brown
www.oomecs.org - a free (as in freedom) computer hardware/software
architecture.
Kenneth P. Turvey
>
>Quoting from the link below
>
>"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not
>charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as
>little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost. "
>
>For any one that thinks $24.95 is to much, they are perfectly legal in obtaining a
>copy for $24.95 and then redistributing it for whatever fee they can get.
>
>Please refer to the following link for further edification.
>
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
I personally don't think $24.95 is out of line, but you should
understand what you are doing.
You are allowed to sell the software (read binaries) at whatever fee
you wish. You must, however, provide the source at cost. The FSF
provides a CD with compiled versions for several platforms for $280.00.
This CD also contains the source code so they have met the requirements
of the license. This is the easiest way to comply with the license.
If they did not include the source on the binary distribution they would
be required to provide the source code at cost, just as you are.
You might want to read through the license again.
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <ktu...@SprocketShop.com>
----------------- http://www.tranquility.net/~kturvey
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for
a few public officials.
-- George Mason, Virginia ratification convention 1788
Paul D. Smith
sc> "Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that
sc> you should not charge money for distributing copies of software,
sc> or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to
sc> cover the cost. "
sc> For any one that thinks $24.95 is to much, they are perfectly
sc> legal in obtaining a copy for $24.95 and then redistributing it
sc> for whatever fee they can get.
I guess I'm completely confused as to what point you're trying to make.
Can you restate, please?
Barry Margolin
Paul D. Smith <psm...@baynetworks.com> wrote:
>%% Stephen Clark <scla...@gte.net> writes:
>
> sc> "Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that
> sc> you should not charge money for distributing copies of software,
> sc> or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to
> sc> cover the cost. "
>
> sc> For any one that thinks $24.95 is to much, they are perfectly
> sc> legal in obtaining a copy for $24.95 and then redistributing it
> sc> for whatever fee they can get.
>
>I guess I'm completely confused as to what point you're trying to make.
>Can you restate, please?
Since the GPL allows you to redistribute the source, you can pay $24.95 for
your copy and then redistribute it to others for (let's say) $5 apiece. If
you can sell 5 copies you effectively got the source code for free.
Or you can get together with a bunch of friends who all want copies and
split the cost, which is effectively the same thing.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
Paul D. Smith
bm> In article <p59077e...@baynetworks.com>,
bm> Paul D. Smith <psm...@baynetworks.com> wrote:
>> %% Stephen Clark <scla...@gte.net> writes:
sc> "Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that
sc> you should not charge money for distributing copies of software,
sc> or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to
sc> cover the cost. "
sc> For any one that thinks $24.95 is to much, they are perfectly
sc> legal in obtaining a copy for $24.95 and then redistributing it
sc> for whatever fee they can get.
>> I guess I'm completely confused as to what point you're trying to make.
>> Can you restate, please?
bm> Since the GPL allows you to redistribute the source, you can pay
bm> $24.95 for your copy and then redistribute it to others for (let's
bm> say) $5 apiece. If you can sell 5 copies you effectively got the
bm> source code for free.
I was confusing about my confusion :).
I'm not confused about Stephen's second paragraph, but rather his
purpose in quoting the first one, especially in the context of the
thread, which was discussing the FSF's selling of CD's for $280 and the
GPL.
Stephen Clark
Sorry about the confusion. This is a confusing topic. Quoting from RMS
Taken from the following link.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
" Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (20k
characters)(GNU GPL)
has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free
software.
You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you,
and the
marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a
copy.
The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the
corresponding
complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide
source code
on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would
be able set a
fee too large for anyone to pay--such as, a billion dollars--and thus pretend to
release source
code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for
source, to ensure
the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification
for limiting
distribution fees, so we do not limit them. "
So the real question is TiVO only distributing binaries without complete source. If
they are then they are limited in what they can charge. At least that is how I read
the above.
Regards,
Steve
Decklin Foster
> Since the GPL allows you to redistribute the source, you can pay $24.95 for
> your copy and then redistribute it to others for (let's say) $5 apiece. If
> you can sell 5 copies you effectively got the source code for free.
I'm confused. Here's section 3(b) of the GPL:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange;
Now, what is the "cost of physically performing source distribution"?
$24.95, or $5? Please explain.
Barry Margolin
TiVo obviously values the time of their engineer higher than you value your
time, so they feel it costs them $24.95 for him to burn a CD-ROM. I was
supposing that you value your time to make a copy at $5.
I actually prefer my second description, which was having a bunch of people
simply split the cost and then redistribute it for free over the net.
BTW, I believe that TiVo can probably satisfy 3(b) by making the source
code available on their web or ftp server. I expect that the Internet is
now "customarily used for software interchange." The cost of physically
performing the distribution is likely to be negligible in this case (even
if they're paying a usage-based fee for their Internet connection, the cost
of a few megabytes is probably in the millicents), so the GPL would require
this to be gratis. They could offer the $24.95 CD-ROM for those who don't
wish to use the net.
Tim Showalter
> Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>
> > Since the GPL allows you to redistribute the source, you can pay $24.95 for
> > your copy and then redistribute it to others for (let's say) $5 apiece. If
> > you can sell 5 copies you effectively got the source code for free.
>
> I'm confused. Here's section 3(b) of the GPL:
>
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily used for software interchange;
>
> Now, what is the "cost of physically performing source distribution"?
> $24.95, or $5? Please explain.
What that subsection says, if you read it as a whole with the rest of
the section, is that a vendor may sell just executable form (section
3, first paragraph) provided that the vendor also makes the source
avalible for the cost of the media.
TiVO is selling their source for about $25, whether or not you've
bought one of their units.
If you have a TiVO unit, and therefore TiVO binaries, you have to be
able to get the source for cost. You probably don't have a TiVO unit,
so you don't get this price.
What this subsection does not imply is what you have incorrectly read.
TiVO can sell their stuff for any price, $24.95 or $2495, but the
source has to come free with the binaries.
Tim
Barry Margolin
Tim Showalter <t...@mirapoint.com> wrote:
>If you have a TiVO unit, and therefore TiVO binaries, you have to be
>able to get the source for cost. You probably don't have a TiVO unit,
>so you don't get this price.
There's nothing in the GPL that ties the ability to get the source for the
distribution cost to owning a TiVO unit. Anyone who presents them a copy
of the written offer should be able to get it. They could have made a copy
of the offer that a TiVO purchaser received.
Tim Showalter
> In article <7dzozn5...@tim-bsd.mirapoint.com>,
> Tim Showalter <t...@mirapoint.com> wrote:
> >If you have a TiVO unit, and therefore TiVO binaries, you have to be
> >able to get the source for cost. You probably don't have a TiVO unit,
> >so you don't get this price.
>
> There's nothing in the GPL that ties the ability to get the source for the
> distribution cost to owning a TiVO unit. Anyone who presents them a copy
> of the written offer should be able to get it. They could have made a copy
> of the offer that a TiVO purchaser received.
Section 3 says you can distribute GPLed works and derived works,
provided you make source avalible. Nothing in the GPL says you have
to distribute derived works under other terms or for other prices.
If you want TiVO's stuff, you have to pay them what they ask, but if you
buy TiVO's stuff and don't get source, then you can get source for
cost of distribution.
Nothing in the GPL says anyone who hears that TiVO is using GPLed
stuff can get TiVO's stuff for the asking. They have to be
distributing it first, and as long as TiVO is giving the source away
with the unit (in accordance with section 3), everything's swell.
Of course, $24.95 is clearly more than the cost of the CD-ROM media
plus shipping. But I don't have a TiVO unit, so I can't complain.
Tim
Sherlock Costello
Nevertheless, both cases are gpled code.
In one case some money has already exchanged hands for hardware --
that accounts for the discounted price :-]
charlie
~
~ Stephen Clark <scla...@gte.net> writes:
~
~ Decklin Foster wrote:
~
~ > TiVo Webmaster <webm...@tivo.com> writes:
~ >
~ > > All our source modifications are available on CD.
~ > > You may acquire a CD
~ > > by sending $24.95 to:
~ >
~ > It costs you $24.95 to burn a CD and mail it to me? I'm not sure
I
~ > believe that. Also, why is it not on an FTP server? If it
~ > is, *please*
~ > correct me.
~
~ Well if you think $24.95 is a lot look what the Free Software
~ Foundation
~ charges for a CD.
~
~ [...$70 or $280...]
~
~ Different situation. They're not saying that's their cost for burning
~ and sending it. In fact, last I checked, they were pretty up front
~ about it being about making money; read the web page.
~
~ --
~ Peter Seebach on managing engineers:
~ "It's like herding cats, only most of the engineers are already
~ sick of laser pointers."
~
Christopher Browne
>Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>
>> Since the GPL allows you to redistribute the source, you can pay $24.95 for
>> your copy and then redistribute it to others for (let's say) $5 apiece. If
>> you can sell 5 copies you effectively got the source code for free.
>
>I'm confused. Here's section 3(b) of the GPL:
>
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily used for software interchange;
>
>Now, what is the "cost of physically performing source distribution"?
>$24.95, or $5? Please explain.
The cost for some penniless university students to "physically perform
source distribution" by uploading the source code of the Linux kernel
to an FTP site is probably $5, representing the cost of the phone line
and ISP connection.
The cost for TiVo to locate and pay a systems engineer to burn a CD is
apparently $24.95.
Apparently those penniless university students have what would be
termed a "comparative advantage."
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #56. "I will only employ bounty hunters who
work for money. Those who work for the pleasure of the hunt tend to
do dumb things like even the odds to give the other guy a sporting
chance."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>
cbbr...@hex.net- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Christopher Browne
wrote:
[Lots that it is easy to agree with.]
>Of course, $24.95 is clearly more than the cost of the CD-ROM media
>plus shipping.
This is the only point with which I would take issue. The cost for
TiVo *to distribute* the media may legitimately be $24.95, as they
have to pay someone to actually perform the actions of making the copy
and putting it into an envelope.
--
"we build confusing systems with nonfunctioning or poor quality drivers"
-- Jim Allchin, a senior vice president of Microsoft, WinHEC 98
cbbr...@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Christopher Browne
Christopher Browne
Russ Allbery
> If you valued my privacy as much as I do, you would not have made your
> product capable of any feedback to you whatsoever regarding what my
> preferences are. However, I freely admit that I may be on the extreme
> paranoid end of the privacy spectrum.
If you are, you're not alone there. If I want feedback on a product, I'll
set up an e-mail address and ask that people voluntarily e-mail me.
Embedding the functionality in the product is just asking for nasty
accidents from accidental misconfiguration or hitting the wrong button. I
don't *want* that much responsibility for other people's data; I'd rather
take the clean approach of only having what they consciously and
intentionally send.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
bog...@nospam.pobox.com
Alexandre Oliva <ol...@dcc.unicamp.br> wrote:
>On Aug 14, 1999, TiVo Webmaster <webm...@tivo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <slrn7rbp6v....@c26469-a.clnvl1.ct.home.com>,>>> > All our source modifications are available on CD. You may acquire
>> a CD
>>> > by sending $24.95 to:
>>>
>>> It costs you $24.95 to burn a CD and mail it to me? I'm not sure I
>>> correct me.
>
>> Sorry Decklin, I don't disclose my salery to anyone except my wife, and
>> even there I fudge a bit. What it costs me to burn a CD you'll never
>> know. :)
>
>We must assume it is $24.95 or more, since the GPL says:
>
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
>under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
>Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>[...]
>b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
>
>But I also find it hard to believe that it costs you that much to burn
>a CD.
Why do people get so hung up on the VERY nominal copying/handling charges?
Hell, go to the FSF web site and you'll find that they are charging anywhere
between $70 and $35 for their CDs. Are you going to flame them
as well?
Bill Bogstad
Leslie Mikesell
Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>In article <7dzozn5...@tim-bsd.mirapoint.com>,
>Tim Showalter <t...@mirapoint.com> wrote:
>>If you have a TiVO unit, and therefore TiVO binaries, you have to be
>>able to get the source for cost. You probably don't have a TiVO unit,
>>so you don't get this price.
>
>There's nothing in the GPL that ties the ability to get the source for the
>distribution cost to owning a TiVO unit. Anyone who presents them a copy
>of the written offer should be able to get it. They could have made a copy
>of the offer that a TiVO purchaser received.
No, the offer is like any other written contract, only valid between
the parties that agree to it. RMS has made the point that the
GPL is not intended to force people who use it into the software
distribution business, but only to ensure that anyone who obtains
binaries is also entitled to the source.
However, anyone else who does get a copy is allowed to redistribute
if they want.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Mark Wooding
> Why do people get so hung up on the VERY nominal copying/handling
> charges? Hell, go to the FSF web site and you'll find that they are
> charging anywhere between $70 and $35 for their CDs. Are you going to
> flame them as well?
Apples and oranges.
1. The FSF's code is available from their FTP site, and from mirrors
all over the world. You don't *have* to pay anything to them to
get the software.
2. The GPL is trying to ensure that you can't make a profit by
withholding source code. The FSF can (and do[1]) charge whatever
they like for their software. Their CDs aren't source code
provided to people who already bought binaries (which would require
charging cost price for source distribution); they're the main
distribution, and include sources already, so any price is fine.
In the FSF case, that price is all you pay: you get the sources and
the GPL lets you do anything interesting with them[2]; in the TiVO
case, you pay for the binaries (and the hardware bits), and then
again for the sources.
$25 sounds like a lot for a CD-R cut to me. A quick look at Tree.UK, a
small UK-based free OS CD distributor, shows that a 5 CD-R
burnt-to-order cut of Debian GNU/Linux costs UKP7.50 (plus P&P), which
presumably covers time, raw materials, mirroring the distributions onto
local storage, a CD writer, profit(!) and all the rest of it. $25 for a
single CD seems exorbitant in comparison.
[1] I believe RMS has stated that the FSF's aim here is to be the most
expensive source for GNU software.
[2] Proprietary development I consider to be boring.
-- [mdw]
Jay Maynard
>$25 sounds like a lot for a CD-R cut to me. A quick look at Tree.UK, a
>small UK-based free OS CD distributor, shows that a 5 CD-R
>burnt-to-order cut of Debian GNU/Linux costs UKP7.50 (plus P&P), which
>presumably covers time, raw materials, mirroring the distributions onto
>local storage, a CD writer, profit(!) and all the rest of it. $25 for a
>single CD seems exorbitant in comparison.
Well, consider a person who's doing the necessary CD supplying as a sidebar
to his real job. A 4X CD-R drive will burn a full CD in about 18 minutes.
Subtract the cost of the CD itself ($1 or so, in reasonable quantity), and
postage ($1, roughly, for a CD sent first class), and you're left with $23.
Assume two minutes for the guy to scrawl "TiVO SOURCE" on the CD with a
Magic Marker, stuff it in an envelope (saves the $.50 jewel case), address,
and drop in the outgoing mail. You've got someone who's doing 3 per hour,
which allows for $69/hour of people cost. Subtract off the cost of benefits,
office space, and other fixed costs, which are generally figured at 1/2
total cost of the employee for a cheap company, and you're paying a guy
$34.50 an hour. In Silicon Valley, that's not an outrageous sum for
someone's time, especially an engineer in a small company who's doing lots
of other stuff; further, that calculation ignores other costs like the CD
burner and local storage and the time and effort required just to keep the
sources straight and ready to burn. I've got no problem with that figure.
Isaac
wrote:
>total cost of the employee for a cheap company, and you're paying a guy
>$34.50 an hour. In Silicon Valley, that's not an outrageous sum for
>someone's time, especially an engineer in a small company who's doing lots
>of other stuff; further, that calculation ignores other costs like the CD
>burner and local storage and the time and effort required just to keep the
>sources straight and ready to burn. I've got no problem with that figure.
>
can make a company go under by asking for source. The idea is that the
company doesn't make a profit off distributing source when they don't
deliver it with the binaries.
In this case, the demand for source by customers is probably going to
be extremely low. The choices here would be to make every customer
pay for something they don't need, hire cheap labor to hang around
mostly idle so that they can burn cheaper CDRs, or to do what TiVO
is doing now. In this case, I have no problem with a $25 dollar CDR.
There's no way that $25 represents either a profit for TiVO or a
deterrent for getting the source if a customer wants it.
Isaac
Mark Christensen
Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote in message
news:slrn7s32ql....@thebrain.conmicro.cx...
> On 23 Aug 1999 14:24:13 GMT, Mark Wooding <m...@catbert.ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
> >$25 sounds like a lot for a CD-R cut to me. A quick look at Tree.UK, a
> >small UK-based free OS CD distributor, shows that a 5 CD-R
> >burnt-to-order cut of Debian GNU/Linux costs UKP7.50 (plus P&P), which
> >presumably covers time, raw materials, mirroring the distributions onto
> >local storage, a CD writer, profit(!) and all the rest of it. $25 for a
> >single CD seems exorbitant in comparison.
>
> Well, consider a person who's doing the necessary CD supplying as a
sidebar
> to his real job. A 4X CD-R drive will burn a full CD in about 18 minutes.
> Subtract the cost of the CD itself ($1 or so, in reasonable quantity), and
> postage ($1, roughly, for a CD sent first class), and you're left with
$23.
> Assume two minutes for the guy to scrawl "TiVO SOURCE" on the CD with a
> Magic Marker, stuff it in an envelope (saves the $.50 jewel case),
address,
> and drop in the outgoing mail. You've got someone who's doing 3 per hour,
> which allows for $69/hour of people cost. Subtract off the cost of
benefits,
> office space, and other fixed costs, which are generally figured at 1/2
> $34.50 an hour. In Silicon Valley, that's not an outrageous sum for
> someone's time, especially an engineer in a small company who's doing lots
> of other stuff; further, that calculation ignores other costs like the CD
> burner and local storage and the time and effort required just to keep the
> sources straight and ready to burn. I've got no problem with that figure.
But is his time billable in this case? In the license, the word
"physically" makes this unclear. It may very well be intended to disallow
labor or anything other than the actual cost of materials plus shipping.
Otherwise one could charge exorbitant prices for labor, thus effectively
profiting from the distribution of source to people who have legitimately
purchased the binaries.
--
Mark Christensen
Ma...@digital-lighthouse.com
People understand me so little that they do not even understand me when I
complain of being misunderstood.
--Kierkegaard
Mark Christensen
Isaac <irc...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
news:slrn7s3el2...@latveria.castledoom.org...
> Excellent analysis. The intent isn't to create a situation where we
> can make a company go under by asking for source. The idea is that the
> company doesn't make a profit off distributing source when they don't
> deliver it with the binaries.
>
> In this case, the demand for source by customers is probably going to
> be extremely low. The choices here would be to make every customer
> pay for something they don't need, hire cheap labor to hang around
> mostly idle so that they can burn cheaper CDRs, or to do what TiVO
> is doing now. In this case, I have no problem with a $25 dollar CDR.
> There's no way that $25 represents either a profit for TiVO or a
> deterrent for getting the source if a customer wants it.
This is true. I doubt that either TiVO, or any reasonable person, would
claim that a 25$ fee to three or four people constitutes a revenue stream
for TiVO. However, the costs of the labor required to distribute source
code could also legitimately be factored into the total cost of the original
unit which is sold with binaries only. In this case that cost would be
negligible (with 4 people ordering the CD, we have something like 100$ which
when divided by the total number of units sold would be next to nothing).
The advantages of using this kind of accounting system are easy to see if
one is willing to think about it a bit. First, there is no question that
you are operating under the terms of the GPL, whereas, I still believe there
may be some question as to whether labor costs are billable as part of the
"cost of physically distributing source code." Thus TiVO is able to avoid
even the possibility (however remote) of an expensive lawsuit, which could
technically be brought by anyone who contributed to the linux kernel. A
second reason to use the accounting system I have outlined above is that
while most customers don't want the source code, they all benefit from
TiVO's use of the linux kernel which is GPLed, and therefor they have
derived significant benefit from the distribution of source, and can
reasonably be expected to pay the small amount of money necessary to keep
that system running.
And lest you start thinking that all I have in mind is TiVO's best
interests, I think it is in the best interests of the free (as in speech,
not as in beer) software community to keep the cost of asking for source
code (once you have purchased a binary) as close to zero as humanly
possible. Otherwise there is a significant disincentive toward the sharing
of code. While it may be that 25$ is nothing to most of us, there are
certainly people who might be interested in taking a look at the code who
would be dissuaded by the costs.
This is especially true if those same people are not planning to "do"
anything with the code. And when you consider the possibility that in 5
years you may own 10, or 20 different devices which have some kind of GPLed
code embedded. (Linus has said that this the embedded device market is a
significant goal for the kernel over the next few years) at 25$ a pop, you
could expect to be paying 250$ to 500$ for the source code for devices you
have bought. And what do you do when TiVO automatically updates your box
with new code, are you going to pay another 25$ to get the new disk? What
if they do this three times a year?
To sum up, I believe that there are real problems with billing labor to
those who want to look at the source code, and there is a significant legal
question as to whether this practice is compatible with software licensed
under the GPL.
Jay Maynard
wrote:
>But is his time billable in this case? In the license, the word
>"physically" makes this unclear. It may very well be intended to disallow
>labor or anything other than the actual cost of materials plus shipping.
>Otherwise one could charge exorbitant prices for labor, thus effectively
>profiting from the distribution of source to people who have legitimately
>purchased the binaries.
The time of the employees involved in making the distribution is certainly
part of the cost of providing that distribution. Your point about the
possibility of charging exorbitant prices for labor has a simple answer: is
it defensible as the actual cost of performing the distribution? If not,
then they're in violation. If so, then prohibiting them from recovering that
cost goes against the clearly stated intent of the license terms; nothing in
the license requires that one operate at a loss.
Christopher Browne
<wwwl...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>But is his time billable in this case? In the license, the word
>"physically" makes this unclear. It may very well be intended to
>disallow labor or anything other than the actual cost of materials
>plus shipping. Otherwise one could charge exorbitant prices for
>labor, thus effectively profiting from the distribution of source to
>people who have legitimately purchased the binaries.
It doesn't make a *lot* of sense for the value of time to be directly
disallowed.
After all, if you buy a CD blank for $2, that includes, in the layers
of production that precede you, *some* amount of money paid for
labour. Furthermore, it is common for a large proportion of "shipping
costs" to be a payment for labour.
Suppose I don't *have* a CD burner, and ask a buddy to do it for me,
and he then charges $25 for the task, which I then charge to you. I
certainly didn't make any money off the deal...
--
The human race will decree from time to time: "There is something at which
it is absolutely forbidden to laugh." -- Nietzche on Common Lisp
cbbr...@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Mark Christensen
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:25:51 GMT, Mark Christensen <wwwl...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
> >But is his time billable in this case? In the license, the word
> >"physically" makes this unclear. It may very well be intended to
disallow
> >labor or anything other than the actual cost of materials plus shipping.
> >Otherwise one could charge exorbitant prices for labor, thus effectively
> >profiting from the distribution of source to people who have legitimately
> >purchased the binaries.
>
> part of the cost of providing that distribution.
My point is that the word physically appears in the license, and it seems
that it must mean something. If it is not intended to disallow labor costs,
what does it mean?
>Your point about the
> possibility of charging exorbitant prices for labor has a simple answer:
is
> it defensible as the actual cost of performing the distribution?
Ok, let's take a look at that for a second. I'm the manufacturer of a PDA
which runs on a modified Linux kernel. In order to satisfy the GPL I choose
to hire a woman to do the distribution of the source code. (I don't include
it with the PDA.) She makes 65k (us) a year, and distributes three hundred
copies of the source code. 65,000/300 means 210$ per copy of the source
code. This might seem a bit exorbitant to some, but we're really paying
someone to do this. It's the real cost of distribution. And the fact that
the woman doing the distribution is my wife shouldn't make any difference.
We make no revenue off of the sale of the source code.
If there is no restriction on labor costs, there's a LOT of room for
creative accounting. Perhaps my wife is also a competent programmer, and
also hacks together updates for our modified kernel "while she's not working
on her primary duty --distributing source."
>If not,
> then they're in violation. If so, then prohibiting them from recovering
that
> cost goes against the clearly stated intent of the license terms; nothing
in
> the license requires that one operate at a loss.
There is nothing in my earlier statement which requires that they operate at
a loss, I merely said that perhaps TiVO and companies like them should
charge enough for their binaries to cover the labor costs involved in making
the source available to their customers.
Jay Maynard
wrote:
>Ok, let's take a look at that for a second. I'm the manufacturer of a PDA
>which runs on a modified Linux kernel. In order to satisfy the GPL I choose
>to hire a woman to do the distribution of the source code. (I don't include
>it with the PDA.) She makes 65k (us) a year, and distributes three hundred
>copies of the source code. 65,000/300 means 210$ per copy of the source
>code. This might seem a bit exorbitant to some, but we're really paying
>someone to do this. It's the real cost of distribution. And the fact that
>the woman doing the distribution is my wife shouldn't make any difference.
>We make no revenue off of the sale of the source code.
I have no problem with this...but, it seems to me, you're basing having the
revenue to pay this employee on a very problematical and variable factor
over which you have zero control, and thus bad business planning. I wouldn't
want to be this employee, especially if the number of requests for source
turns out to be substantially less than 300.
>If there is no restriction on labor costs, there's a LOT of room for
>creative accounting. Perhaps my wife is also a competent programmer, and
>also hacks together updates for our modified kernel "while she's not working
>on her primary duty --distributing source."
There's a lot of room for creative accounting any way you look at it.
Accountants and lawyers are creative people at finding loopholes; if they
weren't, we wouldn't be in the fix we are with the current tax laws.
>There is nothing in my earlier statement which requires that they operate at
>a loss, I merely said that perhaps TiVO and companies like them should
>charge enough for their binaries to cover the labor costs involved in making
>the source available to their customers.
How do you figure out how much to allocate to that in advance? You have to
predict how many copies of the source code you're going to get requests for
in advance and crank that into your budget, as part of cost of goods sold,
under that model. If you can do that successfully, then you should be
playing the lottery instead: you'll hit the jackpot every time through
either blind luck or clairvoyance.
In the Real World, labor is a legitimate and real cost, and ignoring that
fact loses money and puts companies out of business. You're going to have a
very hard time convincing a court that labor cost is not a legitimate part
of the cost of distributing source code, regardless of the word "physically"
in the GPV.
William C. Cheng
Stephen Clark <scl...@paradigm4.com> wrote:
>Decklin Foster wrote:
>
>> TiVo Webmaster <webm...@tivo.com> writes:
>>
>> > All our source modifications are available on CD. You may acquire a CD
>> > by sending $24.95 to:
>>
>> It costs you $24.95 to burn a CD and mail it to me? I'm not sure I
>> believe that. Also, why is it not on an FTP server? If it is, *please*
>> correct me.
>
>charges for a CD.
>
>CD-ROMs in ISO 9660 format
>
>Texinfo source for each GNU manual is packaged with the program on CD-ROM or
>by FTP. CD-ROMs do not include
>printed software users' manuals.
>
>GNU Source Code CD-ROM set, 14th edition (August 1999), with X11R6.4 and GCC
>2.9.5 :
>
>____ @ $280 = $ ______ for corporations and other organizations.
>
>____ @ $ 70 = $ ______ for individuals.
>
>...
Yep! And since these are GPL'ed software, if these items are
selling like hot cakes, CheapBytes or others like them will
be selling these CD's for $2! I don't see what's the big deal
with the prices!
Same thing with the TiVO CD. Since it's GPL'ed code, if there's
a big demand, CheapBytes or others will just pay $24.95 and get a
copy from TiVO and sell it for $2. But of course this is not going
to happen because TiVO is selling hardware. So, find 25 people who
are not unhappy about the $24.95 and buy a copy of the CD and put
it on an FTP site and be done with it!
--
Bill Cheng // bill....@acm.org <URL:http://bourbon.cs.umd.edu:8001/william/>
Mark Christensen
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 06:13:14 GMT, Mark Christensen <wwwl...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
> >Ok, let's take a look at that for a second. I'm the manufacturer of a
PDA
> >which runs on a modified Linux kernel. In order to satisfy the GPL I
choose
> >to hire a woman to do the distribution of the source code. (I don't
include
> >it with the PDA.) She makes 65k (us) a year, and distributes three
hundred
> >copies of the source code. 65,000/300 means 210$ per copy of the source
> >code. This might seem a bit exorbitant to some, but we're really paying
> >someone to do this. It's the real cost of distribution. And the fact
that
> >the woman doing the distribution is my wife shouldn't make any
difference.
> >We make no revenue off of the sale of the source code.
>
> I have no problem with this...but, it seems to me, you're basing having
the
> revenue to pay this employee on a very problematical and variable factor
> over which you have zero control, and thus bad business planning. I
wouldn't
> want to be this employee, especially if the number of requests for source
> turns out to be substantially less than 300.
Well, this is the case whenever you have a product. It's not like TiVO
knows exactly how many units they will sell, but has no idea how many sets
of source code the will be expected to distribute. Anyway, in the above
example the reason I hired my wife is so that I can pay her salery entierly
off of the sale of source code. If my PDA costs 300$ and the source costs
210$ I doubt I will be selling any of the source code -- which I don't
really want to do anyway.
> >If there is no restriction on labor costs, there's a LOT of room for
> >creative accounting. Perhaps my wife is also a competent programmer, and
> >also hacks together updates for our modified kernel "while she's not
working
> >on her primary duty --distributing source."
>
> There's a lot of room for creative accounting any way you look at it.
> Accountants and lawyers are creative people at finding loopholes; if they
> weren't, we wouldn't be in the fix we are with the current tax laws.
Loopholes are a bad thing. Contracts, and licences ought to be written to
close as many as possible.
> >There is nothing in my earlier statement which requires that they operate
at
> >a loss, I merely said that perhaps TiVO and companies like them should
> >charge enough for their binaries to cover the labor costs involved in
making
> >the source available to their customers.
>
> How do you figure out how much to allocate to that in advance? You have to
> predict how many copies of the source code you're going to get requests
for
> in advance and crank that into your budget, as part of cost of goods sold,
> under that model. If you can do that successfully, then you should be
> playing the lottery instead: you'll hit the jackpot every time through
> either blind luck or clairvoyance.
I don't know exactly how you alocate resources to this particular task, but
I think it's less troublesome than alocating resources to tech support, or
to a wide variety of administrative tasks. In cases like TiVO's the entire
ammont alocated needs be little more than 500$, which would be spread across
thousands of units, making the whole thing kind of silly to get all worked
up over. What if it turned out to cost about 600$ total? or even 1200$? If
TiVO's proffit margin is that small, they will go out of buisness anyway.
> In the Real World, labor is a legitimate and real cost, and ignoring that
> fact loses money and puts companies out of business.
I'm not saying that, but I am saying that it is a common buisness practice
to charge enough for a VCR or a copy of Red Hat Linux to pay for the tech
support calls associated with the product. And I am absolutely certian that
the number of copies of source you might be expected to distribute is easier
to predict effectively than tech support costs.
>You're going to have a
> very hard time convincing a court that labor cost is not a legitimate part
> of the cost of distributing source code, regardless of the word
"physically"
> in the GPV.
This is not at all what I want to do. I certainly admit that labor costs
are real, but I am wondering if the GPL requires that A) source is
distributed with the binaries, or B) the labor costs of distributing the
source separately be factored into the cost of the binaries, so that
companies cannot make money of the sale of source code to customers who
have already purchased the binaries.
--
Mark Christensen
Ma...@digital-lighthouse.com
People understand me so little that they do not even understand me when I
complain of being misunderstood.
--Kierkegaard
P.S. Labor costs could be drastically reduced by a couple of simple
refinements in the distribution process. A FTP site, password protected or
not would reduce costs, as would mass producing the CD. These cost cutting
measures will significantly decrease the risks you seem to think are
inherent in my system.
Isaac
wrote:
>
>And lest you start thinking that all I have in mind is TiVO's best
>interests, I think it is in the best interests of the free (as in speech,
>not as in beer) software community to keep the cost of asking for source
>code (once you have purchased a binary) as close to zero as humanly
>possible. Otherwise there is a significant disincentive toward the sharing
>of code. While it may be that 25$ is nothing to most of us, there are
>certainly people who might be interested in taking a look at the code who
>would be dissuaded by the costs.
>
I agree with you in principle, but at the $25 dollar level, I just don't
see a significant barrier. Besides, you can share with any number of your
friends.
>
>To sum up, I believe that there are real problems with billing labor to
>those who want to look at the source code, and there is a significant legal
>question as to whether this practice is compatible with software licensed
>under the GPL.
>
I agree that the question is not clear, but I don't think the question of
legality is a significant issue until prohibitive amounts are charged.
What remedy would the code owner seek if he decided there had been a slight
overcharge or $10 or so to two or three people anyway?
Isaac
Mark Christensen
I don't suggest that we ought go out and form a class action lawsuit against
TiVO. But it does seem reasonable to try to be as clear as we can about
what the consequences of the GPL. If this means that labor costs are not
billable to those requesting source for the binaries they have already
purchased, we should say that. We should tell TiVO, and anyone else who
engages in such practices that they are legally questionable. Then we
should ask them nicely to change their practices.
If they don't we should try to make a public statement that we don't approve
of charging additional labor costs as a precondition to receiving source for
GPLed binaries. Otherwise, given enough time it won't matter what the
license says, if charging for labor becomes accepted practice, we won't be
able to sue when a real abuse comes up.
Yours
Mark Christensen
Christopher Browne <cbbr...@news.hex.net> wrote in message
news:Nnpw3.19218$gO1.6...@news2.giganews.com...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:25:51 GMT, Mark Christensen
> <wwwl...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >But is his time billable in this case? In the license, the word
> >"physically" makes this unclear. It may very well be intended to
> >disallow labor or anything other than the actual cost of materials
> >plus shipping. Otherwise one could charge exorbitant prices for
> >labor, thus effectively profiting from the distribution of source to
> >people who have legitimately purchased the binaries.
>
> disallowed.
>
> After all, if you buy a CD blank for $2, that includes, in the layers
> of production that precede you, *some* amount of money paid for
> labour. Furthermore, it is common for a large proportion of "shipping
> costs" to be a payment for labour.
>
> Suppose I don't *have* a CD burner, and ask a buddy to do it for me,
> and he then charges $25 for the task, which I then charge to you. I
> certainly didn't make any money off the deal...
The point is, I can make money off of selling source to people who bought
binaries from me --if I charge for my own labor. To make maters worse, I
can arbitrarily set the price of my own labor. This goes directly contrary
to the intent of the GPL. The GPL's intent is clearly that nobody be
allowed to make a profit off of selling the source code to those who have
already bought the binaries. (Though they are, of course, free to make
money off of the sale of the binaries and of distributions with both
binaries and source.)
The source code is intended to come with the binaries, but provision is made
for separate distribution, since it is often economically advantageous to
distribute the source to only those who want it. Charging for my labor can
easily be a way to get around the prohibition on making a profit off of
selling source to those who have already purchased the software in binary
form. Paying CompUSA 2$ for a CDr cannot be used as a loophole. That's why
the former can reasonably be disallowed, whereas the latter should not be
disallowed.
--
Isaac
wrote:
>
>I don't suggest that we ought go out and form a class action lawsuit against
>TiVO. But it does seem reasonable to try to be as clear as we can about
>what the consequences of the GPL. If this means that labor costs are not
>billable to those requesting source for the binaries they have already
>purchased, we should say that. We should tell TiVO, and anyone else who
>engages in such practices that they are legally questionable. Then we
>should ask them nicely to change their practices.
>
haven't convinced me at least that the GPL doesn't support charging labor
costs. I don't see any problem with asking them to change, but I don't
believe their practices are legally questionable. I'd only find the
practice morally questionable if the copyright holder or the FSF objected
to them.
>If they don't we should try to make a public statement that we don't approve
>of charging additional labor costs as a precondition to receiving source for
>GPLed binaries. Otherwise, given enough time it won't matter what the
>license says, if charging for labor becomes accepted practice, we won't be
>able to sue when a real abuse comes up.
>
company was delivering a software product, we'd all expect that they
would be structured to minimize software distribution costs since that
would also result in maximizing profits. For a company in the business
of software distribution, it would be easy to analyze the cost charged
for source to see if the GPL is being violated. If a source CD wasn't
significantly less than the binary CD, we could suspect chicanery.
In the case of TiVO, the problem is not so easy. I think TiVO can
legitimately amortize nearly all of the cost associated with distributing
source over only the copies of source they intend to distribute,
whereas a software company would be expected to distribute at least
some of the costs over the binaries as well.
Isaac
Jay Maynard
wrote:
>The GPL's intent is clearly that nobody be
>allowed to make a profit off of selling the source code to those who have
>already bought the binaries.
Fine. When someone does so, sue 'em. I doubt you can prove it absent the
egregious abuse you're claiming as an example. TiVO's $25 charge isn't
egregious, and a court would send you packing quickly.
Ketil Z Malde
> The point is, I can make money off of selling source to people who bought
> binaries from me --if I charge for my own labor.
Bah. If somebody sells source for a substantial amount, why not shell
out for it, and resell it, charging 75% of that?
The only real threat that I can see, would be that nobody buys it at
all, which would mean the community won't get source at all for a
GPLed product. And if that is your intent, why bother with GPL at
all?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Mark Christensen
huug <vo...@nospam.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:huugogfw...@huug.demon.nl...
> >>>>> "CB" == Christopher Browne <cbbr...@news.hex.net> writes:
> I certainly didn't make any money off the deal...
>
> have done that with the binary distribution. The whole GPL is about
> getting source code into the hands of users, so it wouldn't be illogical
> at all if the costs of your choice to ship the sources separately from
> the binaries would be yours entirely.
>
> Section 3b's "for a charge no more than your cost of physically
> performing source distribution" is a bit vague, but even to someone
> whoes native tongue isn't English, it's clear that it limits the charge
> to something less than ordinary distribution cost. And that cost in
> this context doesn't include profit.
>
> If it read "material cost", I'ld think it ment "tape or CD, envelope and
> postage". How do you think physical differs from material, or where did
> I misinterpret?
I think you have it exactly right. "cost of physically performing source
distribution" seems to me to be a part of the overall intent of the GPL that
source code be made easily available to all who purchased the binaries. And
it clearly means something. It is perhaps debatable whether it is exactly
synonymous with "material cost" but I think it likely to be very close to
that in intent.
That being said, I don't think TiVO has done anything which will seriously
damage our community, but there is the possibility that others will use the
same loophole (if we allow it to pass unnoticed, and uncommented upon) to do
some real damage, by avoiding source distribution all together, or by making
it prohibitively expensive.
--
Mark Christensen
734-480-9982
Mark Christensen
Ketil Z Malde <ke...@ii.uib.no> wrote in message
news:KETIL-86ya...@ketilboks.bgo.nera.no...
> "Mark Christensen" <wwwl...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> > The point is, I can make money off of selling source to people who
bought
> > binaries from me --if I charge for my own labor.
>
> Bah. If somebody sells source for a substantial amount, why not shell
> out for it, and resell it, charging 75% of that?
>
> The only real threat that I can see, would be that nobody buys it at
> all, which would mean the community won't get source at all for a
> GPLed product. And if that is your intent, why bother with GPL at
> all?
Because you want to use the linux kernel or some other code which is already
GPLed.
Mark Christensen
Ketil Z Malde <ke...@ii.uib.no> wrote in message
news:KETIL-86ya...@ketilboks.bgo.nera.no...
> "Mark Christensen" <wwwl...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> > The point is, I can make money off of selling source to people who
bought
> > binaries from me --if I charge for my own labor.
>
> Bah. If somebody sells source for a substantial amount, why not shell
> out for it, and resell it, charging 75% of that?
Because I shouldn't have to resort to such a procedure. And there is no way
to tell if it would work, updates would present a particular problem because
I'd have to do this over and over again.
All of this seems to me to be too much hassle, when I, and the others who
bought the binaries in the first place have a right to the source code under
then the GPL. Why should I have to spend significant amounts of time or
money to actually indulge that right?
Todd Larason
>easily be a way to get around the prohibition on making a profit off of
>selling source to those who have already purchased the software in binary
>form. Paying CompUSA 2$ for a CDr cannot be used as a loophole. That's why
>the former can reasonably be disallowed, whereas the latter should not be
>disallowed.
But CompUSA doesn't sell Certified Gold Star 100% Error-Proof CDs.
You can only get those from a Certified Gold Star CD seller, and you
certainly wouldn't want to distribute source code on CDs you weren't
100% sure of. So instead, you purchase CDs from your long-time
supplier, with whom you have a personal trust relationship. Of
course, the guarantee adds to the cost - to get Certified Gold Star
CDs, you have to pay $50, not $2. Oh, and your supplying company is
owned by your wife.
If people wish to violate the spirit of the license, closing the labor
'loophole' won't help.
--
"Ayn's vision is _Russian_ libertarianism, in the same sense that
Leninism is Russian Marxism." -- Joshua W Burton
Mark Christensen
Todd Larason <j...@molehill.org> wrote in message
news:7BDE4FDD3E5A18FF.C10DC6AA...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:11:42 GMT, Mark Christensen <wwwl...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
> >Charging for my labor can
> >easily be a way to get around the prohibition on making a profit off of
> >selling source to those who have already purchased the software in binary
> >form. Paying CompUSA 2$ for a CDr cannot be used as a loophole. That's
why
> >the former can reasonably be disallowed, whereas the latter should not be
> >disallowed.
>
> But CompUSA doesn't sell Certified Gold Star 100% Error-Proof CDs.
> You can only get those from a Certified Gold Star CD seller, and you
> certainly wouldn't want to distribute source code on CDs you weren't
> 100% sure of. So instead, you purchase CDs from your long-time
> supplier, with whom you have a personal trust relationship. Of
> course, the guarantee adds to the cost - to get Certified Gold Star
> CDs, you have to pay $50, not $2. Oh, and your supplying company is
> owned by your wife.
>
> If people wish to violate the spirit of the license, closing the labor
> 'loophole' won't help.
Yes it will, it makes things more difficult. Now you need to set up a fake
company with only one customer. You then need to convince the community
that what you are charging is actually what you are paying for the
materials, which will be quite difficult in this case. (Though you could
easily convince some people that you pay 50$ including labor.)
Yours
Mark
Mark Wooding
> Well, consider a person who's doing the necessary CD supplying as a
> sidebar to his real job. A 4X CD-R drive will burn a full CD in about
> 18 minutes. Subtract the cost of the CD itself ($1 or so, in
> reasonable quantity), and postage ($1, roughly, for a CD sent first
> class), and you're left with $23. Assume two minutes for the guy to
> scrawl "TiVO SOURCE" on the CD with a Magic Marker, stuff it in an
> envelope (saves the $.50 jewel case), address, and drop in the
> outgoing mail. You've got someone who's doing 3 per hour, which allows
> for $69/hour of people cost.
Why does he have to twiddle his thumbs for the 18 minutes it takes to
burn the CD-R? Surely he can get on with something else while it's
going, and be beeped when it finishes. Indeed, he can certainly be
writing the address on the envelope and sticking stamps on or whatever,
and then go back to hacking code, feeding penguins or whatever else his
normal job entails. When that's done, he puts the CD-R in the envelope,
seals it up and puts it on his desk ready for the next time he's going
to be going near the outgoing post tray. That's probably about a total
of a minute's dedicated time.
-- [mdw]
ma...@usai.asiainfo.com
: Why do people get so hung up on the VERY nominal copying/handling charges?
: Hell, go to the FSF web site and you'll find that they are charging anywhere
: between $70 and $35 for their CDs. Are you going to flame them
: as well?
A former employer went crazy when he read the FSF bulletin
(which I had given him, trying to garner some interest in
gcc).
He was absolutely outraged that FSF suggested buying the $500
tape in order to help offset their operating costs. "How
come they want $500 for 'free' software, huh?"
My stay at that company was mercifully short...
--
Mark Harrison "Open the floppy disk door, Hal."
AsiaInfo Computer Networks http://usai.asiainfo.com:8080/
Beijing, China / Santa Clara, CA ma...@usai.asiainfo.com
ma...@usai.asiainfo.com
: My point is that the word physically appears in the license, and it seems
: that it must mean something. If it is not intended to disallow labor costs,
: what does it mean?
Tivo has to pay somebody to "physically" stick the disk in the
drive, put it in the envelope, and drop it in the mailbox.
Tivo is handling this totally correctly, even to the point
of being cheerful and goodnatured in this newsgroup.
:>Your point about the
:> possibility of charging exorbitant prices for labor has a simple answer:
: is
:> it defensible as the actual cost of performing the distribution?
: Ok, let's take a look at that for a second. I'm the manufacturer of a PDA
: which runs on a modified Linux kernel. In order to satisfy the GPL I choose
: to hire a woman to do the distribution of the source code. (I don't include
: it with the PDA.) She makes 65k (us) a year, and distributes three hundred
: copies of the source code. 65,000/300 means 210$ per copy of the source
: code. This might seem a bit exorbitant to some,
Not exorbitant, but kind of dumb... if she's making 300 disk
a year, she's only working about 20 minutes a day. You should
try to think up something else for her to do the other 7.5
hours.
ma...@usai.asiainfo.com
: This is not at all what I want to do. I certainly admit that labor costs
: are real, but I am wondering if the GPL requires that A) source is
: distributed with the binaries,
No, try reading the GPL:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
The GPL mentions cost in at least two other places:
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)....
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.
: or B) the labor costs of distributing the
: source separately be factored into the cost of the binaries, so that
: companies cannot make money of the sale of source code to customers who
: have already purchased the binaries.
It costs Tivo a certain amount of money to tell an employee
to physically make a disk. Just out of curiosity, how much
would you charge to do this?
: P.S. Labor costs could be drastically reduced by a couple of simple
: refinements in the distribution process. A FTP site, password protected or
: not would reduce costs, as would mass producing the CD.
Can you imagine the howls of outrage if they mastered 100
CDs, fixed some bugs in their code, and shipped a copy of the
CD that was no longer current? ;-)
Cheers,
Mark.
ma...@usai.asiainfo.com
: If it read "material cost", I'ld think it ment "tape or CD, envelope and
: postage". How do you think physical differs from material, or where did
: I misinterpret?
It seems that it would include the cost of somebody to physically
perform the effort of creating, packaging, and mailing the
material, right?
ma...@usai.asiainfo.com
: All of this seems to me to be too much hassle, when I, and the others who
: bought the binaries in the first place have a right to the source code under
: then the GPL. Why should I have to spend significant amounts of time or
: money to actually indulge that right?
3 minutes to write a check and drop it in the mail is not a
significant amount of time.
$25 is not a significant amount of money relative to the
cost of a Tivo box.
Ben Pfaff
A former employer went crazy when he read the FSF bulletin
(which I had given him, trying to garner some interest in
gcc).
He was absolutely outraged that FSF suggested buying the $500
tape in order to help offset their operating costs. "How
come they want $500 for 'free' software, huh?"
How do you suggest that the FSF make money? If he doesn't want to buy
the tape from FSF then he can get GNU software any number of
alternative ways.
Mark Christensen
<ma...@usai.asiainfo.com> wrote in message
news:q69lq7...@bigbird.sw.asiainfo.com...
> huug <vo...@nospam.demon.nl> wrote:
> : If it read "material cost", I'ld think it ment "tape or CD, envelope and
> : postage". How do you think physical differs from material, or where did
> : I misinterpret?
>
> It seems that it would include the cost of somebody to physically
> perform the effort of creating, packaging, and mailing the
> material, right?
Perhaps, though I tend to think that it does not. Otherwise I am at a lost
to understand the inclusion of the "cost of physically performing source
distribution" clause in the GPL. It seems to me that it clearly is intended
to disallow certain costs, but not others. I expect that the intent was to
include the costs of materials, the cost of shipping, and not labor costs.
I do not claim anything more than that.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that my reading of the text is the only
one offered thus far which appropriately a) appropriately explains the
meaning of the inclusion of the word "physically" in this clause of the GPL,
and b) fits within the overall intent of the GPL in general and of this
clause in particular.
Despite your objection in another post, it seems to me clear that the GPL
requires one of two things of anyone distributing GPLed software. Either
they must distribute the source code with the binaries, or they must provide
that source code to everyone who requests it. And they must perform this
latter service without attempting to make a profit off of the distribution
of source code to those who have already received binaries through their
distribution. Disallowing labor costs clearly contributes to the general
aim of the GPL, since labor costs could easily be used to make the purchase
of source code impossible, or at least very difficult.
You may disagree, but my challenge of a couple of weeks ago still stands.
If you can provide an alternate reading of why RMS included the word
physically in this clause, I will back down off of my claim. If your
reading fits in better within the context of the clause and the GPL, I will
change my position.
Mark Christensen
news:et8lq7...@bigbird.sw.asiainfo.com...
> Mark Christensen <wwwl...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> : This is not at all what I want to do. I certainly admit that labor
costs
> : are real, but I am wondering if the GPL requires that A) source is
> : distributed with the binaries,
>
Your inapropriate sniping has distorted the meaning of my post. I said:
"I am wondering if the GPL requires that A) source is
distributed with the binaries, or B) the labor costs of distributing the
source separately be factored into the cost of the binaries, so that
companies cannot make money of the sale of source code to customers who
have already purchased the binaries."
My intent was to say that I believe that the GPL requires that no profit be
made from the sale of source code to those who have already purchased
binaries. One way to accomplish this is to charge for the binaries and
include the source code on the distribution medium which contains the
binaries. The only other option the GPL offers is to allow the distributor
to provide the source code separately to those who have already received
binaries, and as a part of this process the distribution may "charge no more
than [their] cost of physically performing source distribution."
I expect that the word "physicaly" here is a shorthand for the equasion
"material costs+shipping." I understand your attempt to include labor as a
cost of "physicaly performing source distrobution," but I have not yet heard
a persuasive argument from you. Why should labor costs be included? Where
else would this language include labor costs? What specificaly is the GPL
trying to exclude by including this clause? And the word physicaly in
particular?
If you can answer these questions, which I have asked before. Then I will
change my position, otherwise, why not try to refrain from jumping to
conclusions as to whether I have read the GPL or not.
Mark Christensen
<ma...@usai.asiainfo.com> wrote in message
news:ul9lq7...@bigbird.sw.asiainfo.com...
> Mark Christensen <wwwl...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> : All of this seems to me to be too much hassle, when I, and the others
who
> : bought the binaries in the first place have a right to the source code
under
> : then the GPL. Why should I have to spend significant amounts of time or
> : money to actually indulge that right?
>
> 3 minutes to write a check and drop it in the mail is not a
> significant amount of time.
Obviously. But buying the CD, posting the source, charging 5$ a pop, in
order to recoup costs does consume significant amounts of time. And that was
the topic under discussion. This is particularly true if I have to keep
paying 25$ for the source every time TiVO automatically updates my software,
which could be as often as once a week.
Leslie Mikesell
Mark Christensen <Please.dont....@digital-lighthouse.com> wrote:
>
>Despite your objection in another post, it seems to me clear that the GPL
>requires one of two things of anyone distributing GPLed software. Either
>they must distribute the source code with the binaries, or they must provide
>that source code to everyone who requests it. And they must perform this
>latter service without attempting to make a profit off of the distribution
>of source code to those who have already received binaries through their
>distribution. Disallowing labor costs clearly contributes to the general
>aim of the GPL, since labor costs could easily be used to make the purchase
>of source code impossible, or at least very difficult.
Labor costs are one thing, profits are something different. Which
employee of the company would you expect work for no pay while
preparing your copy of the source?
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Barry Margolin
<ma...@usai.asiainfo.com> wrote:
>Mark Christensen <wwwl...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>: Ok, let's take a look at that for a second. I'm the manufacturer of a PDA
>: which runs on a modified Linux kernel. In order to satisfy the GPL I choose
>: to hire a woman to do the distribution of the source code. (I don't include
>: it with the PDA.) She makes 65k (us) a year, and distributes three hundred
>: copies of the source code. 65,000/300 means 210$ per copy of the source
>: code. This might seem a bit exorbitant to some,
>
>Not exorbitant, but kind of dumb... if she's making 300 disk
>a year, she's only working about 20 minutes a day. You should
>try to think up something else for her to do the other 7.5
>hours.
Maybe she's a part-timer; she comes in each morning, makes the CD's that
were ordered the previous day, and leaves. But this means they're paying
her $650/hour. Hey, I'll take that job!
I think this may point out a possible meaning of "physically". If they
really charged $210/copy, they would be charging not only for the time she
spends making the copy, but also for the overhead of keeping her on staff
waiting for requests to come in. That overhead, like the cost of her
office space and equipment, should not be in the price that's charged for
distributing the copies.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
ma...@usai.asiainfo.com
: ma...@usai.asiainfo.com writes:
I thought it was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. This was
in 1988, when mailing a cartridge tape full of software
was considered a perfectly normal thing to do. :-)
Mark.
ma...@usai.asiainfo.com
: Your inapropriate sniping has distorted the meaning of my post. I said:
Sorry, then I was misunderstanding your point. The snipping
reflected my understanding of your question.
: My intent was to say that I believe that the GPL requires that no profit be
: made from the sale of source code to those who have already purchased
: binaries.
I don't think so:
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to
freedom, not price."
I think Tivo has lived up to the stated goal:
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program,
whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all
the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too,
receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these
terms so they know their rights."
If you can afford a $1000 Tivo box, you can afford $25 for
the CD, right?
: I expect that the word "physicaly" here is a shorthand for the equasion
: "material costs+shipping." I understand your attempt to include labor as a
: cost of "physicaly performing source distrobution," but I have not yet heard
: a persuasive argument from you. Why should labor costs be included? Where
: else would this language include labor costs? What specificaly is the GPL
: trying to exclude by including this clause? And the word physicaly in
: particular?
If I tell one of my employees "cut a disk and mail it" I have to pay
them to do it. That would certainly fall into "...[my] cost of physically
performing source distribution..."
And as far as I can tell, all of my employees exists in this physical
world, although several of them don't seem to be particularly aware of
that fact. ;-)
If it were a large quantity of disks, we could get a lower
per-unit cost by sending a copy to cheapbytes and ask
them to do their $1.99 thing. But for the quantity Tivo
mentioned (4 disks?) it hardly seems worthwhile.
: If you can answer these questions, which I have asked before. Then I will
: change my position, otherwise, why not try to refrain from jumping to
: conclusions as to whether I have read the GPL or not.
Sorry, but it seems that even a cursory reading of the GPL shows it
is less concerned with monetary renumeration than with the freedom to
modify and redistribute the source code.
Cheers,
ma...@usai.asiainfo.com
: Despite your objection in another post, it seems to me clear that the GPL
: requires one of two things of anyone distributing GPLed software. Either
: they must distribute the source code with the binaries, or they must provide
: that source code to everyone who requests it. And they must perform this
: latter service without attempting to make a profit off of the distribution
: distribution.
I don't think Tivo is making a profit from the disk distribution.
Do you think so?
BTW, how much would you charge to distribute the same disk?
: You may disagree, but my challenge of a couple of weeks ago still stands.
: If you can provide an alternate reading of why RMS included the word
: physically in this clause, I will back down off of my claim. If your
: reading fits in better within the context of the clause and the GPL, I will
: change my position.
See next message, I'll give it my best shot. ;-)
Mark Christensen
Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> wrote in message
news:HbGz3.713$m84.20823@burlma1-snr2...
Exactly my point. It doesn't matter if the sale of source appears as a
source of revenue on someone's balance sheet. That's just a matter of
accounting.
But if I use the sale of source code (in this entire message I will be
referring only to the sale of source code to someone who has already
produced a sources binary) to underwrite other costs I am in violation of
the GPL.
Perhaps the woman mailing the source code is also our webmaster, or a
developer for our modified kernel. If we use the sale of source code to
those who have already purchased binaries to underwrite her labor, the sale
of source code will indirectly appear as a source of revenue on our balance
sheets, because we will achieve larger margins on the sale of binaries than
we otherwise would. In other words, if we are taking in money for the sale
of binaries, and that money offsets some of our costs, the end result is
more revenue -- even if there is no line item for "revenue from the sale of
source " on our balance sheet.
My more general point is that this clause of the GPL is intended to protect
the rights of those who buy binaries of GPLed programs. The GPL recognizes
the fact that it is not always easy, or economically advantageous, to
distribute the source code with every instance of a program, and so it makes
an allowance for the separate distribution of source code.
But, because some uninformed, or unethical people might want to use this
exception to keep the source code unavailable the GPL places some rather
severe restrictions on the separate distribution of source code. In
particular you are not allowed to make a profit off of the sale of source to
people who have bought binaries from you. Otherwise someone might charge 5$
for a text editor, ship it only in binary, and charge thousands of dollars
for the source, and thus effectively making the source unavailable.
This brings up a more difficult question: does this section of the GPL
restrict me from forwarding my labor costs to clients who ask for a copy of
the source code?
I maintain that the wording "no more than the costs of physically performing
source distribution," while somewhat ambiguous, ought to be read to mean
"materials cost+shipping costs." Otherwise, I would be able to make a
profit off of selling source code. This is particularly true where I am the
one who does the labor. And this is likely to be the case is a large
percentage of GPLed code which is developed by an individual or a loosely
connected group of individuals -- not a legally recognized corporate entity.
Even when a company is involved in developing GPLed code, it is reasonable
to expect that they assume some of the costs of distributing source
separately, since they are the ones who benefit most from the exception in
the GPL which allows separate distribution. Likewise it is difficult, if
not impossible for a consumer to determine exactly how much labor was put
into the distribution of source code. And it is also possible for a company
to build in so many inefficiencies into the distribution of source, that it
becomes impractical to request a copy of the binaries.
For all of these reasons, I think it likely that the GPL specifically
restricts me to charging nothing more than my materials cost and my shipping
costs when distributing the source code for GPLed programs which I have
previously sold in binary only form.
Mark Christensen
Leslie Mikesell <l...@Mars.mcs.net> wrote in message
news:7qnh9u$gij$1...@Mars.mcs.net...
Let me reiterate my point from an earlier post. Rather than re-explain
myself, I'll just quote a relevant portion of my previous argument.
"There is nothing in my earlier statement which requires that they operate
at
a loss, I merely said that perhaps TiVO and companies like them should
charge enough for their binaries to cover the labor costs involved in making
the source available to their customers."
And another quote from an earlier post:
"The point is, I can make money off of selling source to people who bought
binaries from me --if I charge for my own labor. To make maters worse, I
can arbitrarily set the price of my own labor. This goes directly contrary
to the intent of the GPL. The GPL's intent is clearly that nobody be
allowed to make a profit off of selling the source code to those who have
already bought the binaries. (Though they are, of course, free to make
money off of the sale of the binaries and of distributions with both
binaries and source.)"
I think these two quotes should answer your objections. I don't claim that
it is morally wrong to charge for labor, that would be absurd. Nor do I
claim that labor costs are not real costs. That too would be absurd.
Likewise I don't expect TiVo, or anybody else to ask one of their employees
to work for nothing, again that would be absurd. However I do claim that
using GPLed code places one under certain obligations, and one of those
obligations is to make source code freely available. Charging labor costs
can easily be used as a loophole to avoid making source available, and that
is why it seems to me the GPL disallows charging for labor --in this one
specific instance!
Mark Christensen
news:2bqnq7...@bigbird.sw.asiainfo.com
> "When we speak of free software, we are referring to
> Sorry, but it seems that even a cursory reading of the GPL shows it
> modify and redistribute the source code.
This is true as far as it goes. GPL is interested primarily with freedom to
access, copy, edit, and distribute code. But, since proprietary software
companies profit from keeping the source unavailable, the GPL does on
several levels need to address the issues of cost, price, and profit. In
order to protect the aforementioned freedoms RMS make the GPL inclusive, so
that non-GPLed code could not be added to a program to make it proprietary.
He also included a requirement that source code be made available to
everyone who purchases a copy of a GPLed program. And, of course they would
inherit all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the GPL.
One place where questions of cost, price and profit are specifically
addressed is the section of the GPL which relates to separate distribution
of the source code of a GPLed program distributed in binary only form.
AFAIK, this clause was included because RMS realized that it would sometimes
be easier, and cheaper, to programs in binary only form.
However, allowing the distribution of binary only programs is a dangerous
activity, since the GPL is intended to protect our right to access, edit,
and distribute source code. Thus, RMS needed to write a clause which
protected the rights of those who receive binary only copies of GPLed
programs. In this case the specific danger addressed is that a company (or
individual) would attempt to charge so much for the source code that they
could make their modifications effectively proprietary. In order to thwart
such people RMS included specific responsibilities for anyone distributing a
GPLed program.
Here is the exact language of the relevant portion of the GPL:
"You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1
and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source
code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on
a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to
give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for
noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object
code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b
above.)"
You will notice, that the distribution of a GPLed program comes with a
choice of three obligations. One can either distribute both source and
binary together, distribute the binaries and offer the source, or (if you
are not a commercial entity) reproduce the offer you received when you got
the binary only copy of the program. The third option is only for
non-commercial entities, so for a company there are only two options. The
first is self-explanatory, but the second one is the source of contention in
this thread.
And while I agree with you that the GPL's main concern here is the
protection of freedom, not issues of cost, this is one of the central points
at which price and freedom intersect in the GPL. Thus, I think we would
both agree that RMS's primary intent here is to protect those who receive
GPLed software's right to access to source code. But, I would argue, that o
do this he makes it clear that the distributor must not charge anything more
than the cost of "physically performing source distribution," or in other
words, he or she may not profit from the sale of source code. This of
course is not an injunction against profit, nor is it a moral statement. I
think the intent is to make it impossible to charge $10,000 for source code,
and thereby make the code effectively proprietary.
There is some debate here, whether physical cost includes labor costs, but
it seem to me that for a large percentage of GPLed code, the labor costs
involved are the coder's own time. If I am allowed to charge for labor, how
is that different from my profiting off of the sale of source code? And, if
I am not allowed to do this as an individual, why would RMS grant that right
to large companies?
> : I expect that the word "physically" here is a shorthand for the equation
> : "material costs+shipping." I understand your attempt to include labor as
a
> : cost of "physically performing source distribution," but I have not yet
heard
> : a persuasive argument from you. Why should labor costs be included?
Where
> : else would this language include labor costs? What specifically is the
GPL
> : trying to exclude by including this clause? And the word physically in
> : particular?
>
> If I tell one of my employees "cut a disk and mail it" I have to pay
> them to do it. That would certainly fall into "...[my] cost of physically
> performing source distribution..."
This, of course is your position. And I'm glad you have it, but I don't
think that you are correct here. Your costs of physically performing source
distribution do not include anything which could be construed as profit,
since that could be used as a loophole to keep people from exercising their
rights to obtain, edit, copy and distribute the source code.
Well, as far as I can tell this is mostly a rehashing of things I have said
before, but perhaps it helps to have it all together in one big piece. If
you have any further questions, comments, or objections I'd be glad to
respond to them, and if there's anything in your post which you feel that I
did not address, let me know that too.
--
Mark Christensen
734-480-9982
Ma...@digital-lighthouse.com
People understand me so little that they do not even understand me when I
complain of being misunderstood.
--Kierkegaard
<ma...@usai.asiainfo.com> wrote in message
news:2bqnq7...@bigbird.sw.asiainfo.com...
> : Your inapropriate sniping has distorted the meaning of my post. I said:
>
> Sorry, then I was misunderstanding your point. The snipping
> reflected my understanding of your question.
>
> : My intent was to say that I believe that the GPL requires that no
profit be
> : made from the sale of source code to those who have already purchased
> : binaries.
>
> I don't think so:
>
>
Mark Christensen
> the CD, right?
Not if they keep updating my binaries remotely on a weekly basis, and I have
to spend:
$25 * 52 weeks =$1,300 per year.
Leslie Mikesell
Mark Christensen <Please.dont....@digital-lighthouse.com> wrote:
>
>"There is nothing in my earlier statement which requires that they operate
>at
>a loss, I merely said that perhaps TiVO and companies like them should
>charge enough for their binaries to cover the labor costs involved in making
>the source available to their customers."
Most people don't need or want source for something that works well.
Why should the people who only want binaries pay extra so you don't
have to cover your own cost for what you want?
>However I do claim that
>using GPLed code places one under certain obligations, and one of those
>obligations is to make source code freely available.
No, you are obligated only to make source available to those who have
received a binary from you and you are allowed to charge to cover
the cost of producing it.
>Charging labor costs
>can easily be used as a loophole to avoid making source available, and that
>is why it seems to me the GPL disallows charging for labor --in this one
>specific instance!
If it wanted to disallow charging for labor it would say so. It doesn't.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Mark Christensen
Leslie Mikesell <l...@Jupiter.mcs.net> wrote in message
news:7qv92m$1ua8$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net...
> In article <N%yA3.3303$Ud2....@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>,
> Mark Christensen <Please.dont....@digital-lighthouse.com> wrote:
> >
> >"There is nothing in my earlier statement which requires that they
operate
> >at
> >a loss, I merely said that perhaps TiVO and companies like them should
> >charge enough for their binaries to cover the labor costs involved in
making
> >the source available to their customers."
>
> Most people don't need or want source for something that works well.
> Why should the people who only want binaries pay extra so you don't
> have to cover your own cost for what you want?
>
> >However I do claim that
> >using GPLed code places one under certain obligations, and one of those
> >obligations is to make source code freely available.
>
> No, you are obligated only to make source available to those who have
> received a binary from you and you are allowed to charge to cover
> the cost of producing it.
You are absolutely right, I was not clear enough, you are only obligated to
make the source code avalable if you distribute binries. I wasn't specific
enough in this post, but I have made clear that this is my understanding of
the GPL in other posts, so I allowed myself to get sloppy. Thanks for
bringing that to my attention.
> >Charging labor costs
> >can easily be used as a loophole to avoid making source available, and
that
> >is why it seems to me the GPL disallows charging for labor --in this one
> >specific instance!
>
> If it wanted to disallow charging for labor it would say so. It doesn't.
Well, then what exactly does the phraise "no more than the cost of
physically performing source distribution" specificaly disalow? It seems to
me to disalow labor, but I am open to other interpertations which take into
account the intent of the clause and of the GPL. You should feel free to
make such an interpertation freely avalable. ;--)
Barry Margolin
Maybe someone who really cares should try asking RMS what he meant by
this. We can argue interpretations here until our fingers fall off but I
don't think we'll ever figure it out unless someone is a mind reader.
Leslie Mikesell
Mark Christensen <Please.dont....@digital-lighthouse.com> wrote:
>
>> received a binary from you and you are allowed to charge to cover
>> the cost of producing it.
>
>You are absolutely right, I was not clear enough, you are only obligated to
>make the source code avalable if you distribute binries. I wasn't specific
>enough in this post, but I have made clear that this is my understanding of
>the GPL in other posts, so I allowed myself to get sloppy. Thanks for
>bringing that to my attention.
More specifically, you only have to make source available to the
people who have your written offer that you are obligated to
include with the binary. That is, you don't have to supply
source to anyone else.
>> If it wanted to disallow charging for labor it would say so. It doesn't.
>
>Well, then what exactly does the phraise "no more than the cost of
>physically performing source distribution" specificaly disalow?
The intent is to simply make sure that the source is actually
available and the price is not so high as to make it effectively
unavailable. At least that has been the explanation in the past.
>It seems to
>me to disalow labor, but I am open to other interpertations which take into
>account the intent of the clause and of the GPL. You should feel free to
>make such an interpertation freely avalable. ;--)
I don't see how you can 'physically produce' something without labor
and if you are a business you have to pay for the labor. How would you do it?
But, it is a competitive world and if someone overcharges for something
that has no copy restrictions and there is a market for it, someone else
will undercut the price, so in practice it doesn't really matter.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Leslie Mikesell
If you are the one who wants it, why do you think someone else should
cover this cost?
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com