[Diritto] GNU GPL free for non-commercial use?

Sat, 9 Feb 2002 20:14:57 +0100

--yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ciao a tutti,

vi  segnalo  un caso  "curioso"  di  utilizzo  della GNU  GPL:  OGRE
(Object-Oriented  Graphics   Rendering  Engine).   Il   progetto  e`
classificato come "free for non-commercial use" su freshmeat:

    http://freshmeat.net/projects/ogre/

Ma nella sua homepage su sourceforge, si legge:

    # Ogre  is licensed  under the  GNU Public  License  (GPL). This
    # basically  means that  you can  get the  full source  code for
    # nothing, nada, zip. There is such a thing as a free lunch.
    #=20
    # Under the  GPL you may use  Ogre for any purpose  you wish, as
    # long as you:
    #=20
    #    1. Release all the source of any work using it,
    #
    #    2. Pass  on the  source  to Ogre  with  all the  copyrights
    #    intact
    #
    #    3. Make it  clear where  you have customised  it. I  make a
    #    pledge  that  Ogre  will  always be  available  under  open
    #    source.
    #=20
    # The above is a precis,  please read the full license agreement
    # before downloading any source.

A  parte  le questioni  di  `free speech'  e  `free  beer' (o  `free
lunch'), qui ci sarebbe gia` da  disquisire sui punti 1 e 2 --- dato
che, detto cosi`, sembra che  chiunque utilizzi OGRE debba per forza
rendere  pubblici i  suoi  sorgenti,  e/o li  debba  fornire a  OGRE
(insomma, come trasformare la GNU GPL in APSL).

    # In addition, if you use  Ogre you _must_ display the Ogre logo
    # somewhere  in your application  (start up  or shutdown)  for a
    # minimum of  2 seconds. This splash-screen is  displayed on the
    # standard Ogre configuration dialog  anyway, so if you use that
    # you don't need  to do anything extra. The  logo is included in
    # the download archive as Examples\Resources\ogrelogo.png.

Questa  clausola mi  sembra assolutamente  incompatibile con  la GNU
GPL. [1]

    # In  most cases this  restricts Ogre  to use  in non-commercial
    # software since  most people don't  want to release  the source
    # for commercial products. I may release a version of Ogre under
    # the Lesser  GNU Public License  (LGPL) at a later  date, which
    # allows works  using the library to be  closed source (although
    # Ogre  will remain  open-source). If/when  this happens  I will
    # likely ask for a fee for this privilege, since the only reason
    # you'd want  to avoid  the GPL is  if you're charging  for your
    # end-product. If  I do decide to  do this, I will  make the fee
    # favourably biased towards shareware products.

Anche  qui, non  si capisce  se  sara` necessario  pagare per  poter
_ottenere_dall'autore_  il prodotto  sotto GNU  LGPL, o  per poterlo
_usare_.   Date le  premesse,  inizio a  propendere  per la  seconda
ipotesi.=20

Per lo meno, la pagina si chiude in allegria (mah...):

    # This is  a ways  away yet, however,  since Ogre is  not mature
    # enough for use in commercial projects. For now, just enjoy the
    # wonderful freedom of open source software. Without open-source
    # community's ideology of sharing of ideas and information, Ogre
    # wouldn't be around today anyway.

A questo punto, le mie domande sono due:

    1. L'autore di  OGRE ha aggiunto delle clausole  che limitano le
       liberta`  offerte  dalla GNU  GPL.   Questo e`  espressamente
       vietato per chi riceve il software e lo vuole ridistribuire:

           #   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.

       Ma lo  stesso si applica anche allo  "original licensor"?  In
       altre  parole, e`  possibile  impedire che  l'autore di  OGRE
       faccia questo uso scorretto della GNU GPL?=20

    2. Pensate  che sia  il caso  di  far notare  tutte queste  cose
       all'autore  di OGRE in  via personale,  o segnalando  il caso
       alla FSF?

Ciao,

Alceste

    Note:

    [1]   Questa   clausola,  in   effetti,   potrebbe  essere   una
          "stiracchiatura" di questa parte della GNU GPL:

              # c) If  the modified program  normally reads commands
              # interactively  when  run, you  must  cause it,  when
              # started running for such interactive use in the most
              # ordinary  way, to print  or display  an announcement
              # including  an  appropriate  copyright notice  and  a
              # notice that  there is  no warranty (or  else, saying
              # that  you provide  a  warranty) and  that users  may
              # redistribute the program under these conditions, and
              # telling the user how to view a copy of this License.
              # (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
              # does not  normally print such  an announcement, your
              # work based  on the Program is not  required to print
              # an announcement.)
--=20
This .signature is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation;  either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
any later version.                    ___________________________________=
=20
______________________________________) PGP information in e-mail header |

--yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8ZXUxKdo6EofyCO4RAoYYAJ9tUN/aMr/kB2yXF1q3LhBftSVL3QCeK0M+
Ys/eNR8mSPVAO8SxhxbaBYM=
=uRHh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX--