I feel at this point the argument has become tainted and lost. The argument that software released under the GPL banner is free is a sticky point by many people who view the actual license to suit, omitting facts as they see fit. You could say its the same argument people use when quoting out of the bible, people will 'see' the points the wish to use and in this case I see this happening now.
The validity of whether a person has the right to sell 'their' software under GNU is not actually in question at this stage, as the license does state that you can do so if you wish but the restriction and non restrictions of the license still applies from the original software to the 'next copy' (as I see it anyway).
The word 'free' is the biggest misleading point in GPL, many people stick to the 'wordiness' that 'free' means free (The oxford dictionary term) and nothing else and others maintain the argument that 'free' means free but not as in 'free beer', as in you may copy, change and redistribute with restrictions imposed to any such person from the original. Unfortunately until this 'area' within the GNU/GPL is changed and made so much clear developers from all walks of life will argue this point till the cows come home.
Yes, you can charge, you are quite within your right to do so.
The GPL home page quotes this paragraph:
Quote:
The FSF supports the freedoms of speech, press, and association on the Internet, the right to use encryption software for private communication, and the right to write software unimpeded by private monopolies.
Its quite interesting to note the last couple of words in this sentence, when does a 'price tag' place a private monopoly on a piece of code? The argument will continue on that and I am more than sure that it will continue and we will all 'quote' our favorite extracts from GNU/GPL without asking that actual legal/validity of the point in question.
Q. Is GPL free?
A. Using the word 'free' is a misleading point. You can freely copy, edit, modify.change, redistribute software written without the actual consent/permission of the original programmer as long as you adhere to the GNU/GPL. What this actually means is this, you can do what ever you like when ever you like as long as you do not actually put in any place 'any further restriction that where in place than when you actually received the original code. The license is MORE than clear about this. So you could say 'free' is your freedom to use the program as was first intended and long as you place no more restrictions are actually placed on the freedom to use it.
Quote:
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Further down we see this statement:
Quote:
You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
At first reading you maybe forgiving in thinking that its quite acceptable to sell your modified software as the above sentence seems to imply but then this clears this whole matter and there can be NO arguments on its point here.
Quote:
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively block your freedom to release modified versions. Rules that ``if you make the program available in this way, you must make it available in that way also'' can be acceptable too, on the same condition. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to publish the program or not.) It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one, or that you identify yourself on your modifications
Again:
Quote:
Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words. If a license includes unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate the issue in these criteria. Sometimes a license requirement raises an issue that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a lawyer, before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable. When we reach a conclusion about a new issue, we often update these criteria to make it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
Now why the whole point of having a license of this kind in the first place, is it to protect the original author? No it is not, its there to protect the software, yes that is correct. This license stops other people coming and taking the original code and placing it in another domain that would place further restrictions upon its usage.
Please read:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.htmlPlease note the wording in this paragraph:
Quote:
In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copy left'' it. Copy left says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copy left guarantees that every user has freedom. * this
Mithirander as so many times point out that 'free' means freedom to use and modify and not in free as free beer. Very validate point.
Quote:
The GPL VERY clearly states that "free" is not a monetary term, but in the meaning of "freedom"
Quote:
Herko : https://xoops.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2055
This announcement is fully within the limits we set to commercial announcements. This is a XOOPS module developed for the XOOPS community, and all they're asking for is donations to fund development. I definitely don't see anything wrong with that. This is a Free Software community, but Free as in free speech, not free beer...
I will 100% agree with them on this issue and they are 100% correct. But this is as far as I will agree with them regarding this issue and there is one major outlining part that been has forgotten regarding AMS, the license that AMS uses is now invalid. I will explain. If we actually look at the history of AMS, we will see that is a derivate of another work 'News Module' (Which was originally a port for another CMS). As I am aware and I might be incorrect here, neither Brash or Mithirander are the creators, nor the original developers here. If this is the case, the news module is freely available to download and modify, edit and redistribute as long as NO FURTHER RESTRICTIONS are placed in the FREEDOMS of it use to edit, modify or distribute it by another person.
Quote:
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".)
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Section 2, paragraph 2 does not apply here.
AMS is a derivative of the News Module, there should be no restrictions regarding the source code to me or any other person under the freedom to edit, change, modify or distribute a modified version allowed by GNU/GPL. However, I cannot say that regarding the current version of AMS, currently I have to pay a donation/price to 'see' the source code, under GNU/GPL and the copy left act this is forbidden, and could be deemed as breaking the law in some courts. So in essence, my freedom to edit, change, modify the program as it was originally intended (News Module) has been removed. It is that simple, plain and clear, my FREEDOM now as been removed from the source code and the source code as clearly moved from one domain to the next.
No permission was given by the previous developers to restrict 'their' code in such a manner, in fact the GNU/GPL was violated by credits NOT given where it should have been.
Whereas, if AMS was written from 'the group up and original' then the above would not have applied here.
Q. Can I charge for GPL software?
Quote:
The term "sell software" is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money is "selling"; but people usually associate the term "sell" with proprietary restrictions on the subsequent use of the software. You can be more precise, and prevent confusion, by saying either "distributing copies of a program for a fee" or "imposing proprietary restrictions on the use of a program," depending on what you mean.
A. Now in essence the GNU/GPL allows 'any' user' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs." as long as the freedom permits and these freedoms are adhered to as the license permits and no one impedes on these freedoms.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.htmlthen you have this argument, both from the same website:
Quote:
To elucidate this argument, let's apply it in another area: road construction.
It would be possible to fund the construction of all roads with tolls. This would entail having toll booths at all street corners. Such a system would provide a great incentive to improve roads. It would also have the virtue of causing the users of any given road to pay for that road. However, a toll booth is an artificial obstruction to smooth driving--artificial, because it is not a consequence of how roads or cars work.
Comparing free roads and toll roads by their usefulness, we find that (all else being equal) roads without toll booths are cheaper to construct, cheaper to run, safer, and more efficient to use.(2) In a poor country, tolls may make the roads unavailable to many citizens. The roads without toll booths thus offer more benefit to society at less cost; they are preferable for society. Therefore, society should choose to fund roads in another way, not by means of toll booths. Use of roads, once built, should be free.
When the advocates of toll booths propose them as merely a way of raising funds, they distort the choice that is available. Toll booths do raise funds, but they do something else as well: in effect, they degrade the road. The toll road is not as good as the free road; giving us more or technically superior roads may not be an improvement if this means substituting toll roads for free roads.
As state above, we all have our own idea's covering this matter. My opinion is that GPL actually are sitting on the fence with this one or giving conflicting comments regarding this matter and neither approving fully nor actually totally against it. Again, its unclear as to what the 'charge' for the software should actually be for, some say only the developers should be able to charge for the time and resources for writing and developing the software, for downloading the software or it's postage and packaging only.
The actual fact is this, payment for downloading and using a piece of GNU/GPL code is about as useful as a chocolate gun in a hot desert. The argument melts in front of your eyes. Why? Simple, once released, its 'gains its freedom under the GNU/GPL'. It then becomes FREE to Use as in FREEDOM to USE, EDIT, MODIFY or DISTRIBUTE as you wish as long as the original license is not broken.
While on paper it may solve many issues, it actually creates more problems than it solves.
Its easy to stipulate that you CAN charge for GPL and make money from it (Hmmmm) and keep the source code free (as in Freedom of speech and not as in beer ). Well, you may as well be drinking from an empty well. The perception of charging and having open source code is ambiguous to say the least, why bother charging for something when you cannot control what happens to it once released and the possibility someone else will give it away for free 'next door'?
The sad fact is, that the GNU/GPL is not there to protect the developer, its there to ensure that the source code is 'free' (as in freedom of speech and not beer) to all persons who wish to see, edit, change, modify and distribute it (Source code)'. As I see it, there is a thin blue line here between 'free' and 'freedom of speech'. However, you may wish to word it or see it differently from myself.
The problem with the current debate has become rather obscured and tied up with 'should we have the right to charge in an open source community? When really, we should be discussing 'do module developers have the right to protect their work and charge to further aid the development of the software?'
Lets take a prime example of this. If you have used Xoops, then you will have come across MySQL at some stage. MySQL is available under two different licenses, GNU/GPL and a commercial one. Why not just release it under one license for all? Because GPL license ensures the commercial will continue and the commercial license will create revenue to further develop the software for all concerned. Thus better all around.
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/So who pays for this then?
When you even mention the words 'money', 'payments' and 'donations' we have to be very careful here or you will create ripple of panic for those people who rely on open source community and free (as in freedom of speech and not beer! Did I mention that before?) software for their very existence. The fact is we should be catering for the both the open source and business community, and making the distinction extremely clear between both sets. The open source community WILL always provide valuable helpful feedback, bugs and suggestions and they realise that the cycle of software changes weekly (here today gone tomorrow). Thats the nature of open source.
On the other hand, commercial business require stable, secure and reliable software, and are willing to pay to ensure that their million dollar company doesn't go under due an open source developer deciding to quit working on an application. The revenue generated from the business sector will help in a lasting development of cycle of the software life. (Ok a bit OTT, but its not that far from the truth).
The question of a dual support both 'open source' and commercial standing within XOOPS will not work under the current license. So without good clear guidance, substance and leadership it will ultimately lead to dissent in the ranks, by the people XOOPS depend on most and who's future depends on and is not good business management to bite the hand that feeds. A blinkered attitude, with the inability to look ahead and forecast the ever changing needs of the world around you, has cause many a business to fail. We should address the needs of not just the community as a user (open and business), but more importantly, the developers that are required to fulfill and meet the needs of the community as a whole with stable web applications.
