[Discussioni] Re: GNU GPL free for non-commercial use?
Alceste Scalas
tjoad a gmx.it
Dom 10 Feb 2002 13:49:35 CET
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 10:15:04PM +0100, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> > Il progetto e` classificato come "free for non-commercial
> > use" su freshmeat:
>
> Freshmeat sbaglia, perche` secondo le intenzioni dell'autore
> e` GPL.
Il problema e` che proprio l'autore di OGRE, nel registrare il suo
progetto su Freshmeat, ha scelto di classificarlo come "free for
non-commercial use" --- nonostante la lista delle licenze
selezionabili comprenda anche la voce "GNU General Public License"
:-\
Ed e` proprio questo che mi ha reso prevenuto sul resto delle sue
affermazioni... Assieme al fatto che OGRE gira esclusivamente sotto
Windogs --- quindi, non e` per niente detto che l'autore abbia avuto
una "esposizione" sufficiente al concetto di Software Libero...
> > # 2. Pass on the source to Ogre with all the
> > # copyrights intact
>
> Questo e` vero. Attenzione, Ogre non e` una ditta, e` il
> programma. Devi distribuire il sorgente del pacchetto col
> pacchetto. E` detto in maniera sempliciotta, ma e` cosi`.
Probabilmente l'autore intende dire "pass on the source _belonging_
to Ogre with all the copyrights intact."
Tuttavia, mi viene il dubbio che "pass on the source to Ogre" possa
significare che le modifiche ad OGRE _devono_ essere fornite al
progetto "with all the copyrights intact" --- ovvero, sotto il
copyright originale di OGRE.
Nel dubbio, forse e` meglio farlo notare... Anche perche` la GNU
GPL non stabilisce chiaramente che il copyright su ogni modifica ad
un programma deve poter restare al proprio autore. E mi sembra
proprio che Mr. OGRE non abbia capito che, con la GNU GPL, "tutto
cio` che non e` vietato deve essere permesso."
> > # 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.
>
> Qui fa confusione tra commerciale e proprietario. Non pensa
> che possa esistere software libero commerciale, e diffonde
> disinformazione (come sopra). Se si sostituisce "proprietario"
> a "commerciale" ha ragione. «There is such a thing as
> Commercial Free Software» <-:
Uhmm... Non sono completamente d'accordo... Alla fin fine, viene
detta una cosa (purtroppo) vera: la _maggior_parte_ delle
persone/aziende non vuole rilasciare il codice dei propri prodotti
commerciali. Tuttavia, leggendo la frase, si puo` concludere (per
esclusione) che esiste anche una minoranza che fa l'esatto
contrario... E anche questo, per fortuna, e` vero! :-)
Insomma, io non puntualizzerei troppo su questo passaggio...
> > # 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,
> >
> > 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.
>
> Ovviamente la prima. Non essere prevenuto, questo sa di cosa
> si tratta, solo lo dice in un modo non del tutto corretto e
> sicuramente troppo semplificato.
Mah, mi viene il dubbio che l'autore creda di poter aggiungere
arbitrariamente dei vincoli alla GNU (L)GPL... In altre parole,
come oggi costringe a mostrare il logo per due secondi, domani
costringe a pagare per l'uso sotto GNU LGPL.
Anche in questo caso, direi che e` meglio precisare...
> > [1] Questa clausola, in effetti, potrebbe essere una
> > "stiracchiatura" di questa parte della GNU GPL:
> >
> > # c) If the modified program normally reads
> > # commands
>
> Attenzione, questa fa parte della GPL, quella no. Quindi e`
> una licenza diversa.
Indubbiamente --- stavo solo provando a ipotizzare da dove fosse
nata l'idea di obbligare a mostrare il logo di OGRE...
Comunque, anche seguendo i tuoi consigli, ho provato a scrivere una
e-mail all'autore di OGRE, mettendo alla prova il mio inglese
maccheronico. La trovate in allegato --- please forgive the speling
errorrs :-)
Ciao,
Alceste
--
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 --------------
From: Alceste Scalas <tjoad a gmx.it>
To: steve a stevestreeting.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: OGRE and GNU GPL licensing issues
Reply-To:
X-PGP-Program: GNU Privacy Guard (http://www.gnupg.org)
X-PGP-Public-Key: Keyserver || http://digilander.iol.it/tjoad/tjoad.asc
X-PGP-Key-Id: 87F208EE
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3D2F 7EE6 5F13 03F2 767E 4B1D 29DA 3A12 87F2 08EE
X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux
Hello Steve,
I have just discovered your 3D rendering library (OGRE), on
<http://freshmeat.net/projects/ogre>.
I'd like to express my congratulations for your work, and to thank
you for your decision to release it under the GNU General Public
License. And I'd also like to give you some advices about the
license application, regarding some details that could make people
misunderstand the GNU GPL meaning, when reading your web pages.
Before starting, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, let me
state that I am a strong Free Software supporter, and that I have no
intentions to annoy you, nor to criticize your work. I only want to
be constructive --- so, please read on :-)
On Freshmeat, your project license is defined as "free for
non-commercial use." Well, the GNU GPL has been created to give
users the freedom to use a program for _any_ pourpose. The GNU GPL
(and the Free Software licenses in general) can be used for
commercial pourposes, and various people/companies use them for all
(or most of) their business (also in the 3D graphics field). But,
unfortunately, a lot of people still think that "GNU GPL means
non-commercial." Some references:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCommercially
http://public.kitware.com/vtk
http://www.opencascade.com/
http://www.ximian.com/
http://www.mandrakesoft.com/
http://www.redhat.com/
Furthermore, the actual "free for non-commercial use" classification
on Freshmeat makes readers believe that your OGRE is just another
shareware, proprietary tool --- and I don't think that it is your
intention. So, I'd suggest you to clearly indicate that OGRE is
under the "GNU General Public License," also on the freshmeat
project account.
Following the freshmeat links, I came to:
http://ogre.sourceforge.net/downloads.php
Here it is possible to read:
| 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.
If you want, it can be right for your program --- but the GNU GPL
doesn't forbid to charge a fee for every copy of the program that
one distributes. For the details, you can see:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee
So, I'd suggest you to reformulate the above sentence, in order to
avoid that readers misunderstand it: unfortunately, there is too
much people thinking that "GNU GPL just means gratis." For example,
you could say that "Ogre is licensed under the GNU General Public
License (GPL), and you can get its full source code freely."
| 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
As you say later, this is a precis --- but one may think that,
because of the GNU GPL, the sources of every modification/use of
OGRE _must_ be made public. This is not a GNU GPL requirement:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html|GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
Unfortunately, too much people think that "the GNU GPL forces you to
release your code to the public." To avoid this misconception, you
may say that, if an OGRE-based work is distributed, it is mandatory
to make available its whole source code.
| 2. Pass on the source to Ogre with all the copyrights
| intact
Maybe you mean "pass on the source _belonging_ to Ogre". If this is
so, you can skip the next paragraph.
Otherwise, it seems that every modification to the OGRE sources
_must_ be given to the project, and put under the same copyright as
OGRE itself. But please note that the GNU GPL does not _force_
anyone to offer his/her sources; furthermore, it does not forbid
anyone to freely modify his/her copy of the program, retaining the
copyright on the code he/she writes. If you require the copyright
on every external patch going to be included in the "official" OGRE
distribution, you can ask for it --- but, if people don't agree,
they are free to put their code in their own OGRE version (under the
terms of the GNU GPL, of course).
| 3. Make it clear where you have customised it.
This is correct, and sometimes people don't remember it. That's
good that you said it clearly :-)
| 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 requirement is not compatible with the GNU GPL, that states:
# 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.
In other words, you put an additional restriction on the rights
given by the GNU GPL (the requirement to show the logo when using
OGRE), but the GNU GPL itself doesn't allow it (in order to preserve
users' freedom). Because of this contraddiction, if an OGRE user
doesn't obey to your requirements, it won't be clear whether he/she
is wrong or not.
So, I'd suggest you to _request_ to show the OGRE logo, instead of
_requiring_ it: this way, you don't create any contraddiction ---
and I think it's unlikely that people will refuse to observe your
request. [1]
| 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.
Maybe you don't mean it, but it may seem that you are going to ask
for a fee to permit the use of the GNU LGPL'ed version of OGRE.
If this is not true, you can skip this paragraph. Otherwise, please
note that you can't do it: you can ask for a fee for each copy you
distribute, but the recipients will be able to use and redistribute
OGRE freely, under the terms of the GNU (L)GPL. For details, you
can read this (that applies both to GNU GPL and GNU LGPL):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee
Finally, the last suggestion (the last, I swear! :-): while I was
browsing the OGRE CVS repository, I saw that the copy of the GNU GPL
included there doesn't report its final part (the instructions for
how to use it).
It may seem a detail, but that part can't be omitted, since the GNU
GPL can be copied, but can't be modified:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOmitPreamble
Well, that's all. I hope that this e-mail will be useful, and, of
course, I'll be glad to answer your questions (if any).
Anyway, you can get the best help about GNU GPL issues from its
creators: you can ask to <licensing a gnu.org>.
Regards, and thanks for your attention,
Alceste
Notes:
[1] Anyway, if you think it is worth, you may consider whether
it is possible for you to apply this point of the GNU GPL:
# 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program
# or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the
# Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or
# work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
# you also meet all of these conditions:
# [...]
# 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 [...] (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 č stato rimosso....
Nome: non disponibile
Tipo: application/pgp-signature
Dimensione: 232 bytes
Descrizione: non disponibile
URL: <http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discussioni/attachments/20020210/6b5b5e57/attachment.sig>
More information about the discussioni
mailing list