🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Nov3.233743.29063@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, dennis@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Dennis Ferguson) writes...
>In article <3NOV199114383049@minnie.me.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>>In article <25096@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, cs199ak@uape_14.ucsd.edu (Eiffel Kills C++) writes...
>>>As far as I know, if I write a software package and copyleft it, and
>>>sell it to someone, what's to stop them from undercutting my price and
>>>selling a mess of copies?  Is there any provision for further
>>
>>But you can't sell it either.  All you can do is charge "distribution"
>>fee and perhaps sell them a manual.  You are highly unlikely to be 
>>compensated financially to the extent that you could earn a living
>>from the work you have done with your product.  

>This is incorrect.  You can sell software which contains copylefted
>code to whomever you want for whatever price you can get (what is a
>"distribution" fee, if not a selling price?).  The only constraints are
>that you must make the source for the whole program available to the
>person you sell it to, and you must not restrict their ability to
>redistribute the program further on the same basis by which you were
>given the right to sell GPL-licensed code in the first place.

That is a pretty big "only constraint", isn't it?

The person whose article I responded to has an original work
that he is interested in distributing.  He asked whether or not
his decision to CopyLeft will affect the commercial status of 
his product.  He has asked this question twice in this group,
and gotten surprisingly little feedback, considering that he
is offering to CopyLeft a significant work (an implementation
of Eiffel).

Ref: article <25096@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>:

>I think I've seen a thread like this somewhere in this newsgroup, but I
>can't find it, so here goes my question.

>As far as I know, if I write a software package and copyleft it, and
>sell it to someone, what's to stop them from undercutting my price and
>selling a mess of copies?  Is there any provision for further
>resellings to automatically mark some percentage or fixed dollar amount
>to go to the author?  Or are all your rights gone, including your right
>to get some compensation for writing the original code?

It is a fair question, and the answer is that the author CANNOT
stop them from distributing a "mess of copies".  He CANNOT restrict 
the right of the user to redistribute the product, and he CANNOT 
insist on getting royalties on these redistributions.

>If you feel these constraints won't allow you to make the amount
>of money you want from the sale of your program then just don't
>include any GPL-licensed code in your program in the first place.
>Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't sell software for a living.  I am a graduate student, 
planning a career in research in which ALL of my intellectual 
contributions will become public, and uncompensated.  (That is,
unless I can find a journal that pays for submissions! ;-) )

But who is asking to have their cake and eat it too?

GNU is trying to pretend that CopyLefting is not inconsistent 
with a desire to sell a software product commercially;  anyone
with an ounce of common sense can see that an arrangement in
which copying is unrestricted will not lead to commercial success.

>>Fortunately, this is not the only way to publish source code.
>>To preserve your commercial rights, and release your current source
>>to the public all you have to do is "g alt.sources" and hit "p".
>>
>>That way, your rights to use the code as a foundation for later 
>>commercial work are protected, and the right of others to use the 
>>code are not restricted.  

>This is nonsense, you really should read the GPL if you are going
>to comment on it (that is my only qualification).  

I have read the GPL, and I do not think that my recommendation 
that the author place the source in the public domain -- that is,
make it really free instead of free with alot of strings attached
-- is a non-sensical one.

It is the mechanism by which genuinely free software is distributed;
it is also the mechanism by which academics have traditionally 
distributed intellectual contributions.  

The CopyLeft is different:  it places conditions and restrictions 
on the subsequent use of the code.  Because most of the programming 
that is done in the world is still done for "private" clients, the
net effect of the CopyLeft is to make the code less useful for many
programmers than would be the case if the code were genuinely "free".

Attaching a CopyLeft to one's code is little different than attaching
a condition to a scientific paper:  for example, one might publish
a paper in physics an attempt to require that the ideas within not be 
used for weapons research, by groups that support apartheid, etc.

In my opinion, the objectives of the CopyLeft are reasonable for
instances in which one wishes to make a program free and public
and keep it that way.  The CopyLeft is not something that I would 
recommend to a person concerned about commercial rights in a 
software product.

>There is nothing
>in the GPL which prevents you from distributing a version of your
>own code under the GPL now and under some other terms later.  You
>have the right to do whatever you want with your own work, when ever
>you want.  It is only if your program contains code written by
>someone else and obtained by you under the terms of the GPL that
>constrains you to make your program available under the terms of
>the GPL if you are distributing the program at all.  You are perfectly
>free to do whatever you wish with your own code, but if you use other
>people's code you really do have to respect their freedom to do what
>they wish with their own software.  This seems fair.

Of course it is.  But once this author publishes version one of 
his Eiffel implementation under CopyLeft, it is not likely that 
he could successfully go commercial with a later version.

>Your whining paranoia, and belittling of the efforts of others because
>you don't think you'll be able to get rich enough selling software
>they wrote under the terms by which they made it available to you,
>grows tiresome.

I have read the GPL.  Please correct me if I have misrepresented 
it in this case.  In any case, I have no plans at present to write
or sell commercial software, so I don't see how the comments above
are applicable.

I have no objection to the use of CopyLeft as a way to keep 
source code and improvements available to successive generations
of contributors.

What I object to are the assertions that CopyLefted software can
be sold commercially.  This is a case in which GNU is trying to 
"have it's cake and eat it too".  

The person who asked the question about his commercial rights has an
original work to that he wants to be able to sell.  If he CopyLefts it, 
he will not profit financially from his work.

That doesn't mean he won't be doing us all a great favor, but he
should understand that before he makes the commitment to CopyLeft.

-- Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)