🚀 go-pugleaf

wollman@emily.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) writes:
> In article <e7oR522w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Industrial Poet) 
> >>     If the author distributes software under the GPL in expectation of
> >>     consulting income from users who need extra features, you directly
> >>     damage the author's income because the author can't fix your version.
> >Why *should* the original author be able to make money from something I
> >modified and which I am selling?
> 
> Why *should* you be able to make money from something somebody else
> wrote, and from which you have created a derivative work?

I don't know, but the GPL allows it.  Now answer my question.

> >The GNU approach questions my right to control distribution of my software. 
> >question the original author's right to make money from supporting modified
> >versions of his code sold by other people.
> 
> It is *******NOT******* *your* software...

Why not?  The author gave it to me.

>                                              it is the *original*
> *author's* software which he has graciously permitted you to make
> modifications to

No, it is my software which happens to include some of his code.  (Or maybe
even a lot of his code.)

> >So the question remains:  Why is reimbursement of a GNU program's original
> >author (by means of releasing the changed sources) legally required if I
> >*sell* or *distribute* modified GNU software, but not if I *use* modified GN
> >software?
> 
> Because that's the way the author wants it!

Right.  So there is no reason other than the fact that the FSF crowd don't
like the idea of people making money by selling software -- is that what
you're saying?

>                                            The author has recognized
> that people sometimes need to make changes to software in order that
> it will operate in their environment, or to add needed features, or
> what have you.  The author says that he doesn't mind if you do this
> for your own personal use, but if you distribute a DERIVATIVE WORK
> based on HIS PROGRAM (sorry for all this shouting) then you must abide
> by certain terms, specifically to pass on all the rights you received
> from the original author.

No, if that was all he was saying I could simply bundle a copy of his
original code (unmodified by me) along with my modified program.  I'm then
passing on all the rights I received from the original author.  But I'm also
selling a program based on his code, and not providing the source to the bits
I have written.

As I understand it, the GPL forbids that.  Why, other than to to victimize
people who sell software?

[...]
>                                                          So, in order
> to prevent the derivative-work-makers which he has licensed from
> making trivial changes to the program and using that as an excuse to
> hide the sources from any recipients, he places the restriction that
> derivative-work-makers must release the source.

Ah, but "the sources" you refer to in the first part of the sentence are
*HIS* sources, whereas "the source" you refer to in the second part is *MY*
source code with bits of his in it.

In effect, the GPL gives him control over my work if I use his work.  This is
not, in my view, acceptable.  I want us both to have some control.


mathew