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

[Alceste Scalas]

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.
    # 
    # Under the  GPL you may use  Ogre for any purpose  you wish, as
    # long as you:
    # 
    #    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.
    # 
    # 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. 

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? 

    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.)
-- 
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.                    ___________________________________ 
______________________________________) PGP information in e-mail header |
-------------- parte successiva --------------
Un allegato non testuale è stato rimosso....
Nome:        non disponibile
Tipo:        application/pgp-signature
Dimensione:  232 bytes
Descrizione: non disponibile
URL:         <http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discussioni/attachments/20020209/d58c9481/attachment.sig>