Dizkus

From my understanding, it is a clear violation to charge for GPL code. Of course, you can charge to provide support, installation, modification ,etc etc. But you cannot charge someone a fee to have access to the code itself.

I am a firm believer that some are violating the GPL by forcing pay for access to the code itself. They hide this fact by stating the subscription/fee is for support and technical assistance, not the code. Yet the code itself is stored on their server and access to it is only for those that have given them money.
Please understand that I have no problem paying for code (I do pay for code). I have no problem with charging others to tweak and modify or to install the code (well, only done it 19x so far). What I would like to know, is how do you feel about it?

IMHO: clear violation to charge for access to the code. Freely distribute the code, or simply keep it for yourself.

If it were originally your code, if you are charging access, if you purchased the access to download the GPL code, if you have any understanding or none what so ever... pls vote and comment.

Please keep this discussion open and civil. Use serious thought and respect. Please do not name possible violators or throw out some spout of a tantrum. This is a serious discussion and I am genuinely interested in hearing the opinions of both developers and end users.

pls note: I have a great deal of respect for all the people that contribute to the Open Source (and PostNuke) community. Through their time and efforts, the projects are nurtured and grow. I also have respect for those finding a way to make a living doing what they love. This discussion is not meant as an attack on any person or company, I am just trying to open some eyes and start a serious discussion on a very serious subject.

short extraction from the GNU General Public License:



--
regards from germany
..::[Zikula Application Framework]::.. ..::[SEO-Blog]::.. ..::[CMS Sicherheit]::..

thanks larsneo...but the GPL clearly states that:



(edited for bad grammar and spelling, oops :shock: )

Maybe I am looking too much at one aspect of the GPL....so basically I can create an online wherehouse of GPL code and then charge people to be able to have access to download it? Seems wrong...

source: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/selling.html

disclaimer: i'm not a lawyer ;)

--
regards from germany
..::[Zikula Application Framework]::.. ..::[SEO-Blog]::.. ..::[CMS Sicherheit]::..

If you were a warehouse storing GPL software then you would have every right to charge for access to the warehouse/GPL software. The software would be taking up valuable space so the charge would be for space and not software......Once you've paid for access to the warehouse you should be able to take as much GPL software you could carry. On the other hand it would be wrong if you were charged for the GPL/software once in the warehouse.....

So you are paying for the service and not the software, which is how it should be.

Well thats my understanding....

The Free Software Foundation encourages people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. The Free Software Foundation states:



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

I have contacted the heads at GNU and FSF about our activities at http://pnapi.com. We are prepared to make financial contributions.

...the info so far is very good and clarifies the concept of charging for accessing GPL code. Thanx mediatech, I do like the work at pnAPI.
I find it very interesting that the vote is equal right now (wrong vrs right). If others would grow some b*lls and voice why they feel it's wrong, I would like to hear your opinion.
Come on people, speak up! I know for a fact there are a number of people that are concerned about censorship or even being banned, but the Devs and forum admins probably want intelligent discussions going on here. Just keep it clean and let's talk about the GPL and the way we see it being used and (possibly) abused.
If you have one, ad a related topic to conduct on GPL that we see and link it up to this thread.

I read the german translation of GPL yesterday again, and §1 states that it's fine to have people pay for services around the installed OpenSource program, e.g. for resolving problems or support, and I'd also say that it's fair to request a fee for the installation, because this takes time and affords some basic skills in server setup, permission systems,... .
But §3 states that you also have to include the source code in one way or the other, so people can get into the OpenSource project themselves, additionally to that, §3.2 clearly says that you have to copy the source code for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution.
This - in my eyes - definitely confirms that a development under GPL can't be sold to a customer, only payment can be requested for services around the OpenSource project (like the above mentioned installation or support).
My company also requests fees for installation, customization, but we use PostNuke as a platform for our webShop-System, which was not developed under GPL and is sold independently.
Hope to hear some more interesting comments on this topic!
Sascha (from Germany)

Brook Humphrey (Webmedic) Wrote:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.postnuke.devel/8713

When people realized that Lindows.com did not readily offer the source code to LindowsOS, cries of "GPL Violation!" were heard all over the net. The simple fact is that the GPL is not very specific, but the general and common implemention of it is. Nowhere does the GPL http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html specify that the source code must be distributed over the Internet; this is just something many take for granted since many Linux distributors offer their source in said manner. Lindows.com does make the non-GPL'ed part of their source code available to their "insiders." This satisfies the GPL requirements. Under the GPL, in fact, you could charge exhorbitant sums for your source. The only restriction is that it must "be available." As for not supporting Open Source development, Lindows.com has contributed and supported a number of projects. According to this Michael's Minute http://info.lindows.com/askmichael/question4.htm. Lindows.com has contributed to the Desktop Linux summit, wineCONF 2002, DebConf2, and KDE League, among others projects.



Ray Soucy (GNU Webmaster) Wrote:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.postnuke.devel/8700

Keep in mind that you can charge money for GPL'd software. The only thing is that once someone has a copy, they are free to re-distribute it. I think, however, that there are plenty of ways to make money off this. I myself make considerable amounts of money on Free Software, and am in the process of writing an essay on a new business model for it.

Another great way to make money with Free Software is to build Free Software-based hardware solutions, such as workstations, servers, routers, firewalls, VoIP gateways, VPN servers, access servers, database servers, clusters, etc. The list goes on, and here again, the idea is that you can charge a fee for the distribution of the software, but your don't restrict the freedoms of the users.



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

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.

Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. The program is free regardless of the price, because users have freedom in using it.

Non-free programs are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a store will give you a copy at no charge. That doesn't make it free software, though. Price or no price, the program is non-free because users don't have freedom.

Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.

Free software is a community project, and everyone who depends on it ought to look for ways to contribute to building the community. For a distributor, the way to do this is to give a part of the profit to the Free Software Foundation or some other free software development project. By funding development, you can advance the world of free software.

Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it!

In order to contribute funds, you need to have some extra. If you charge too low a fee, you won't have anything to spare to support development.


Will a higher distribution price hurt some users?
People sometimes worry that a high distribution fee will put free software out of range for users who don't have a lot of money. With proprietary software (18k characters), a high price does exactly that -- but free software is different.

The difference is that free software naturally tends to spread around, and there are many ways to get it.

Software hoarders try their damnedest to stop you from running a proprietary program without paying the standard price. If this price is high, that does make it hard for some users to use the program.

With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.


Will a higher distribution price discourage use of free software?
Another common concern is for the popularity of free software. People think that a high price for distribution would reduce the number of users, or that a low price is likely to encourage users.

This is true for proprietary software -- but free software is different. With so many ways to get copies, the price of distribution service has less effect on popularity.

In the long run, how many people use free software is determined mainly by how much free software can do, and how easy it is to use. Many users will continue to use proprietary software if free software can't do all the jobs they want to do. Thus, if we want to increase the number of users in the long run, we should above all develop more free software.

The most direct way to do this is by writing needed free software or manuals yourself. But if you do distribution rather than writing, the best way you can help is by raising funds for others to write them.


The term ``selling software'' can be confusing too
Strictly speaking, ``selling'' means trading goods for money. Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it.

However, when people think of ``selling software'', they usually imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the software proprietary rather than free.

So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way this article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term ``selling software'' and choose some other wording instead. For example, you could say ``distributing free software for a fee''--that is unambiguous.


High or low fees, and the GNU GPL
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.

Sometimes companies whose activities cross the line of what the GNU GPL permits plead for permission, saying that they ``won't charge money for the GNU software'' or such like. They don't get anywhere this way. Free software is about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is defending freedom. When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.


FSF & GNU inquiries & questions to gnu@gnu.org. Other ways to contact the FSF.

Comments on these web pages to webmasters@www.gnu.org, send other questions to gnu@gnu.org.

Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, USA

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.

Updated: $Date: 2002/08/26 22:03:49 $ $Author: rms $