When GPL Becomes Almost-GPL — the CSS, Images and JavaScript Loophole 224
New submitter sobolwolf writes "It has been apparent for some time that many developers (mainly theme designers) are split-licensing PHP-based GPL distributions, releasing proprietary files alongside GPL files with the excuse that CSS, JavaScript and Images are 'immunized' from the GPL because they run in the browser and not on the server. This is almost always done to limit the distribution of the entire release, not just the proprietary items (most extensions will not function in any meaningful way without the accompanying CSS, Images and JavaScript). Some of the more popular PHP-based GPL projects, like WordPress, have gone as far as to apply sanctions to developers distributing split-licensed themes/plugins. Others, such as Joomla, have openly embraced the split-licensed model, even changing their extension directory submission rules to cater specifically to split-licensed distributions. In light of all this, I would like to ask the following question: While it seems to be legal to offer split-licensed GPL distributions, is it in the spirit of the GPL for a project such as Joomla (whose governing body has the motto 'Open Source Matters') to openly embrace such a practice when they can easily require that all CSS, Images and JavaScript be GPL (or GPL-compatible) for extensions that are listed on the Joomla Extensions Directory?"
Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
is it in the spirit of the GPL for a project such as Joomla (whose governing body has the motto 'Open Source Matters') to openly embrace such a practice when they can easily require that all CSS, Images and JavaScript be GPL (or GPL-compatible) for extensions that are listed on the Joomla Extensions Directory?"
Yes, it is perfectly within the spirit of the GPL to add exemptions to the license terms. Plenty of GPL projects, even those from the GNU project, have exemptions to the GPL terms such as linking in GPLed libraries, etc. Stop being such a freetard.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Realistically, I'm not sure how this is even a problem since one could create a CSS, JavaScript, and Images of their own, and have a working version. In the two cases above, Wordpress and Joomla, you can have fully working versions of these without adding in custom CSS, JavaScript or Images. These named types do not change the functionality, they are SKINS for the actual program. I'm not sure how OS advocates can claim GPL flows down to skins, being unlinked items not required for functionality of the core software.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Once could similarly create C program code oneself, so I don't see the need for open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Joomla is acting like the library component here, because the extensions are using its APIs. If Joomla added an exception that said "you can use the Joomla API under conditions X in non-GPL programs", yes that would be similar to things like the OpenSSL exception [gnome.org]. But if the Joomla is GPL and is serious about advocating that license for their own ecosystem, they shouldn't do that without a seriously good reason. One-off licenses with exceptions create legal headaches that make them less useful than ones
Data vs code (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL has never been about data (e.g. the Doom WAD files), but just about the code.
The fact that so many themes and what not are violating the principles of separation of content and presentation and interaction (HTML, CSS, and JS) is a problem. But, if they weren't doing it, then it wouldn't matter if the JS and CSS were Free or not. Because the content would be usable without the crap.
Personally, I just say, don't use themes that aren't all Free. Solves the issue for me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bach was paid to perform several music related jobs during his lifetime. The work he did composing his works was ultimately related to that.
It's unrealistic to expect people to provide work for free, and then expect them to work 2 or 3 jobs to pay for things like food and shelter. On the bright side, if they're any good, there are probably plenty of lusty ladies that come with the territory.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you make a living through music if you refuse to sell any or even attempt to sell any?
Re: (Score:2)
Performance?
Re: (Score:2)
After graduating, he held several musical posts across Germany: he served as Kapellmeister (director of music) to Leopold, Prince of Anhalt-KÃthen, Cantor of Thomasschule in Leipzig, and Royal Court Composer to August III.[4][5]
Re: (Score:2)
Your point being? Unskilled workers don't work 2 or 3 jobs to give away something for free.
Also, I have never been unskilled because I busted my butt to get skilled. I wasn't born like that.
Re:Data vs code (Score:4)
I see people who want money from me for stuff as lacking integrity. People should just give me stuff. If only more people had Bach's integrity.
Bach had a patron (Score:2)
So if you think the patron had no influence on the music ever, at all....I think you'd be mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that?
I'm just curious because 'images' is one of the key elements in this story and works of art are so often used in products like games.
If they used GPL then I will have to assume that they meant for it to be used literally and that the "loopholes" are intentional, otherwise they should have used another license.
I agree.
No, it's not. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not it's legal is a different matter, but the spirit of the GPL is clearly the proliferation of open source software.
And the source code is still being proliferated as GPL. Just not the art assets. So taking your logic, according to you id Software is violating the spirit of the GPL by not GPLing their WAD files for Doom, correct?
Re: (Score:3)
Categorizing javascript as art might get earn you a new shirt and a nice padded room without a view.
It all depends on whether the javascript (or CSS) is a derivative work of the platform code or not.
Re: (Score:2)
The artwork is not part of the code base and only interacts with the code base in the most technical of ways.
The javascript is arguably supposed to be included, but that would be dangerous as it would mean that you couldn't link against GPL libraries without turning that code into GPL code, regardless of whether or not you're changing the GPL code.
Which is probably not what most people really want.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand. "don't develop code for them" is not possible when your product is a website, which uses separate files for script, images, and styling. It is not embedded, and the images can be replaced with ones that have the same name, and possibly dimensions, without changing one bit of your code.
The scripts can be replaced with others of the same name. Unless you are using inline styles, your CSS can be replaced, all without violating any copyright.
Just download this package, unzip it
Re: (Score:2)
its more the fear of the GPL, where you use something like a css file and suddenly all your website has to be licenced under the GPL too because of the GPL requirements in the CSS files' licence.
This is usually the reason things are dual-licenced, to try and clear up the kind ofd confusion ordinary people have with using GPL software.
Personally, I think it might be time to change things a little to keep with the spirit of GPL without affecting your right to make your own software and release it (or not) as
HTML is a container (Score:5, Informative)
I have asked FSF about this specific issue.
They basically consider HTML as a container, like a ZIP archive. So, the "bundling" that occurs when HTML is combined and rendered to the browser is not considered a derivative work in the eyes of FSF, just like if you bundle GPL files with non-GPL files in a ZIP file, the contents of the ZIP do not all fall under the GPL.
This means that when things are combined in to an HTML file, even if parts of the HTML file are GPL, the entire resulting document, is not GPL.
I find this view inconsistent, and disagree with it, but it's their license, so who am I to judge. Mind, if my view were followed, then things would be quite different on the web. So, their view is probably the "correct", and most certainly "pragmatic" view. I just think it's inconsistent.
Now, how that applies to externally loaded files (like JS and CSS) is not clear to me, but I assume the same rules apply. In a normal program, were you to link them together, the entire finished product would be GPL. But not under the auspices of the browser environment, apparently.
I think if the "HTML is a container" view is the correct stance, then the included files would also be immune to the GPL for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
AFAIK the GPL only applies to linking. The JS and the server software are not combined to form one program in any sensible definition of linking.
BUT if the non-free javascript / css itself is a derivative of the javascript or css it replaces, it becomes GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK the GPL only applies to linking. The JS and the server software are not combined to form one program in any sensible definition of linking.
It applies to derivative works, in the true legal sense of the term "derivative work."
The FSF has suggested that programs aren't a derivative work if they aren't linked together (like, a kernel and userland, for example), but that is not a legal certainty. The idea of 'derivative work' is still not clearly defined by congress, and court cases may end up determining whether javascript and server software are a single program.
Re: (Score:2)
It applies to derivative works, in the true legal sense of the term "derivative work."
It *also* applies to anything that is combined with GPL code to form "a larger program". This could be interpreted as anything linked (and in GPLv2 this was explicit; GPLv3 is [presumably intentionally] more ambiguous, e.g. to cover interpreted or run-time linked programs).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL does not cover program output (except under very special circumstances).
So the PHP script may be GPL, but the HTML document it spits out is YOUR data and is not automagically "GPLed". There's no direct link between the PHP script and any CSS or images. So the FSF is absolutely correct that there's no "linking" (in the derived works sense).
Likewise, AJAX scripts generally communicate through inert data passed over a defined API -- this is the classic situation where the GPL does not cross program bou
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point, as you design HTML (or whatever generates the HTML server side), images, and scripts as one whole product. The page works consistently, and if something needs fixed, it could be in the page, or css, or image, or script. It is a whole as a product, as a creation, as a science or useful art.
What happens is this - a user grabs your free distribution, and bundles a zip file you can unzip and overwrite the original files with a new theme. As you said, bundling files in one zip does not make
Re: (Score:2)
They basically consider HTML as a container, like a ZIP archive. So, the "bundling" that occurs when HTML is combined and rendered to the browser is not considered a derivative work in the eyes of FSF, just like if you bundle GPL files with non-GPL files in a ZIP file, the contents of the ZIP do not all fall under the GPL.
The thing is, the FSF has absolutely zero say in what is and is not a derivative work, unless that definition is enshrined in the license that people use.
Barring that, the only definitions that matter are those of the lawyer sending you the cease and desist, or the judge presiding over the case after you give said lawyer the finger. Unless the law considers HTML as a container, you can still be screwed over.
This is why the GPL is dangerous - it's complex, it's complexities create ambiguities, and the interp
Re: (Score:2)
The view is not inconsistent; the output of software programs is plainly not copyrightable (that is, there is no new copyrightable work being produced, only the component works that may go into it, which retain their respective licenses).
CentOS v Redhat = same thing? (Score:3)
So.... is RedHat Linux non-Free since you can't redistribute their proprietary images/icons/wallpapers/etc ? After all, isn't CentOS the same code base, compiled the same way, with the same configurations, etc. but without RedHat's logos, etc?
Probably under "entire work as a whole", but (TM) (Score:2)
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.
This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.
However, accordin
Re: (Score:3)
These trademark issues aren't even specific to RedHat or CentOS. Debian even rebrands [wikipedia.org] their version of Firefox and Thunderbird as IceWeasel and IceDove, also due to trademark restrictions.
If it's possible to rebrand a program easily in this way, I take that as proof the artwork involved is not really an essential part of the program. The changes of the CentOS and Debian artwork forks do not diminish any feature of the software. That can't be said about most CSS and Javascript, and even some images are ma
GPL "Infection" (Score:5, Interesting)
It's people like this poster who promote the whole "infectious" GPL crap that Microsoft et al have been capitalising.
This behaviour ("split licensing") is perfectly fine, legal and moral.
The GPL is all about preserving access to code. If you use GPL code, you have to publish that code. If you make changes to it, you need to publish those changes as well. This is to stop people "proprieterizing" GPLed code by making a few incompatible changes and releasing it.
The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project. But people are afraid it does mean that, due to people like the poster, and Microsoft's FUD. If you want to know why people are shying away from the GPL, and view it as a threat, look to the article submitter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Javascript libraries (which is what this article is about) are not compiled or linked with their accompanying HTML/CSS files.
Re: (Score:2)
define 'linking'. Yes, I know the traditional sense...
The implied context is that a website is the sum of its parts. HTML/CSS/JS/images are all load by the browser, which parses each URL embedded in the html document and invokes an interpreter for each, whose results are combined to form a web page, with the JS dynamically manipulating the DOM produced from the HTML.
A lawyer for the prosecution would argue that this runtime combination constitutes a derivative work. Just sayin'...
Re: (Score:3)
To which the lawyer for the defence would respond, with a quote from the GPL:
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
Seriously - this is the reason nobody wants to use the GPL any more. They don't want lawyers taking their stuff away from them. This attitude is poison to the adoption of the GPL, and is why pretty much everything I use these days is BSD or MIT licensed (including every javascript library I know of - jQuery, Prototype, MooTools).
Re: (Score:2)
"The GPL is all about preserving access to code."
No it's not, it's about something else entirely. Otherwise, Tivo-ization would not be an issue.
GPLv3 addresses Tivo-ization not to preserve access to code but to gain access to hardware. You have to give me what I say or you can't play with my toys. It's not about free code, it's about RMS getting what he wants. It's always been about that.
"The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, ..."
It would if RMS got his way. RMS once asserted that inc
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From GPLv2
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
It's only with GPLv3 that RMS jumped the shark and tried to take everyone else's stuff. Prior to that, the intention was clearly spelled out in the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of the GPLv3 implies that he's "[trying] to take everyone else's stuff."
Re: (Score:2)
The removal of the quoted paragraphs.
Re: (Score:2)
"The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project."
You should read what the FSF says about that: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
Javascript libraries (which is what this article is talking about) are not linked or compiled with the HTML/CSS that is packaged with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then the GPL has failed because that is exactly what these people are doing. They're altering the GPL code, offloading code to proprietary files, then releasing the whole thing as a finished product. I presume this can be done with
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no they're not - where are you even getting that? These people are bundling GPLed javascript libraries in with their own HTML/CSS/JS/images and not open-sourcing the accompanying resources. "Split licensing" doesn't refer to diving up a GPL-licensed file, it means when a given package contains code with two different licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
It's people like this poster who promote the whole "infectious" GPL crap that Microsoft et al have been capitalising.
[...] If you use GPL code, you have to publish that code. If you make changes to it, you need to publish those changes as well.
You take to task another poster's understanding of the GPL and yet you do not seem to understand it yourself. Anybody who uses Ubuntu (to take just one example) is using GPLed code. They don't have to publish anything. As far as changes go, you are not required to release your changes unless you decide to release binaries derived from your changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes it is. Because you're atatcking a strawman. Nobody is "moving functionality outside the original codebase so you can make it proprietary". TFA is discussing how theme authors create a theme for an OpenSource platform (for example, Wordpress) bundle an open source javascript library (for example, jQuery) with their theme, but then don't open source their own javascript, CSS or HTML.
Re: (Score:3)
"Moving functionality outside the original codebase so you can make it proprietary is very much not in the spirit of the GPL."
But it is in the spirit of hypocrisy. Oh, you actually wrote the code? Well, I'm going to tell you what to do with it anyway.
People who own the copyright get to do as they please, as GPL people are so fond of pointing out when it suits their interests. Don't like it? Write your own.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me how including jQuery in a zip file with some HTML and CSS includes symbols from the library into the code.
The concept of "spirit" applies to legislation (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL is based on contract law and copyright rather that it being either a constitution or a law.
Re: (Score:2)
Contracts have to be spelled out verbatim whereas as things like legislation and constitutions are open to some interpretation.
Contracts are subsidiary to law, always, and can most certainly have interpretation. However, the interpretations that courts prefer are those that were understood by the parties to the contract at the time the contract was entered into (or as agreed later if the parties agree to vary that contract, and all subject to the contract actually being legal at all). People work very hard when drawing up a contract to describe exactly what everyone was agreeing to as this reduces the amount of trouble if there's a
Ask yourself, what would RMS do? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, he'd chew his hair and wax poetic. We know that already, but what would the poem say?.
I suspect it'd say: I'm sorry, but CSS very much is code. Not in the sense true languages are like C++, Python and PHP are. Ok, I'm not so sure that PHP qualifies. But anyway, the reason that even so piddly not-real-languages are part of the code is that it's nearly impossible to use the real code with the underlying CSS underpinnings that, actually, pin the boxes to the right place on the screen. Go ahead, take some huge news site, remove the CSS from it and see if you can still use it. I bet you can't. It frequently ends up looking like an application that magically put all their widgets rooted at 0,0 in the window. It's useless. Sure, it's all there, but it's useless. Thus, it has to be a rather important part of the "code". It takes both the output of the underlying framework langue and the CSS to make the result usable. Otherwise it's like compiling C-code into assembly, but for the wrong chip.
I'm quite sure this violates the principal of the GPL. I'm not sure about the letter of the law, since IANAL. But it sure smells like a GPLv4 is ripe for the picking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All computer data is computer data. That is, it is a sequence of 0s and 1s.
All computer data may be arbitrarily interpreted by an interpreter.
An interpreter reads computer data and follows its programmed instructions based on the computer data.
A computer program is computer data for an interpreter.
A binary is a translatio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is not true at all. The GPL was devised for a very specific purpose and that purpose has been explained and discussed at work.
What is true is that using force to prevent people from exercising their rights here would be wrong and against the spirit (ie if you actually sue someone in for violating the spirit of the license that suit should not be a winner.) But expecting people that claim to be oriented towards the ideals of free and open source software to avoid circumventing that spirit does not seem
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not true at all. The GPL was devised for a very specific purpose and that purpose has been explained and discussed at work.
Then this should be made specific and overt. If a relevant or necessary demand is missing from the license, the license needs to be rewritten to include said demand.
The term, "spirit," by its' very nature, refers to something undefined, non-specific, and acorporeal. I'm surprised that anyone who identifies as an atheist in particular, would be comfortable with using it.
I say again; if there is a "spirit," or an "ethos," associated with the FSF or the GPL, and such has heretofore been implicit and "intuiti
Re: (Score:2)
"Then this should be made specific and overt. If a relevant or necessary demand is missing from the license, the license needs to be rewritten to include said demand."
You marched right past the point. This is NOT a demand! It is not the intention of the GPL to in any way expand copyright law to regulate any more than it already does! As long as copyright law doesnt define the artwork as a derivative work of the GPLd code then the license, legally speaking, isnt needed. And that's fine. One of the key differ
Re: (Score:2)
It's ok to use the code and do the minimum required!
The problem is the fact that anything else gets said. If that is what the license requires, then that is what the license requires. The stuff about, "being a big believer in free and open," is extraneous, subjective garbage; and is exactly the issue, here.
If I do what I am legally required to do, then I should neither be applauded for being a member of the cult, or condemned if I am not a member of it. If I am legally in compliance, then I should not have to know or care about the opinion of "the communi
Re: (Score:2)
read the license (Score:3)
If you read it, you'll find that:
No, you do not have to make your modifications public .
If you CHOOSE to distribute a binary, you must offer to distribute the source as well.
The intent, the spirit, IS made explicit in the first paragraph, the preamble.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the GPL has a spirit that goes beyond its legal wording. The clearest example of that in action was when the GPL v3 was introduced to block things like Tivoization. That sort of loophole was against the spirit of the license, but not explicitly blocked by it. Once the problem was clearly identified, the legal language of the license was updated. You can think of that as turning more of the spirit of the license into explicit legalese. People who think the wording of these licenses are some so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your first paragraph is a definition of the spirit of a legal document. It's the rules that reflect the goals of those who drafted the GPL, including both seen and hithertofore unforeseen situations. If every situation was foreseen, then there could be no legal loopholes, and therefore nothing could ever could fulfill the letter of the law but not the spirit.
Do you have a problem with the word spirit or something? This isn't a new concept and it doesn't need scare quotes.
A bigger problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Third-world problems are nothing either. You should see what's happening on Vorgon 3, my friend. Humans have it easy.
Re:First world problems (Score:5, Informative)
While GPLv3 may not have been the most elegantly exectuable change, it was driven by 3 needs. A new technological means of circumventing end-user control, an increasing threat of patent lawsuits under a new legal means, and better compatibility with existing licenses. The changes you decry are the result of treating a license somewhat like software, making what will hopefully be mostly improvements and patch flaws, but this inevitably results in some regressions. Honestly, 3 releases in over 25 years isn't bad at all.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't hate the GPL, I just hate the politics behind it.
When something is GPL, the people come out of the woodwork to fork it, reverse engineer it and otherwise turn it into something it was not supposed to be. I've had this experience first hand, and quite honestly I'm not willing to deal with this again.
On the other side you have the BSD licence where redistributing the source is not a requirement, and you can pretty much keep it as it was designed to by telling people who fork it to change the name of t
Re:First world problems (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you could do that with GPL code as well. Just use trademark law. Firefox does the same thing, which is why Debian ships iceweasel. Now, it might be a bit more complex if you are building your project off of someone else's GPL code, but in that case, you are likely the one who is "it into something it was not supposed to be."
Actually, you don't need to share your contributions in you don't distribute your code.
Patents break everything everywhere. Where GPL patent clauses get messy is when you are shipping a product where you license a patent from someone else.
As for binary blobs, that's usually not tied to patents. Otherwise, distros from countries without software patents would ship with Nvidia drivers. Binary blobs are the results of non-free code. I believe a large portion of it is that the code is already under a restrictive copyright license for reasons like sharing a decent chunk of code with a proprietary windows driver, which they may not retain all the rights to. There's also fear that competitors will reverse engineer their products via this source code or similar such nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing about source code for proprietary products is a load of bupkis when it comes to patents.
Patents are about what your code actually does, and not what its source code looks like.
Closed sourcing something doesn't protect it from infringing patents.
All it really does is make it harder for you to get caught.
This, truly, is one reason why companies fear open source. They're afraid of getting their hands caught in someone else's cookie jar.
Re: (Score:2)
I won't deal with GPL projects because people will just fork it so they don't have to give their changes back.
Forking a project doesn't change its license that way. You can complain about people who outright ignore the code's license, and those who bypass it via "reverse engineering" that's mostly copying code between projects. Those both happen, and that's a problem sometimes. But neither of those can be called forking.
Re: (Score:2)
Forking does that, because the GPL doesn't require that you contribute your changes back only forwards: you must give the code to the people you give binaries to, nothing more. It's easy to fork a project, make some structural changes, and then release your version that has all of the code that isn't necessary for your use removed and other things that are annoying for anyone who doesn't have access to the rest of your system added. The code is still available, but the cost of merging changes back upstrea
Re: (Score:2)
I don't blame the GPL.
I blame unscrupulous companies trying to use patents to undermine the goals of open source.
And by the way, you completely misread the GPL.
The GPL says NOTHING about kicking changes back upstream. It only says you have to punt your source code downstream to your users.
It's to protect your users from getting locked out by proprietary software keeping the source code under wraps so that they can't change it. It says nothing about forcing you to let upstream freeload off of your work.
The
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Is your law degree from the University of Uranus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, but if you are violating the license of someone else in doing so, you have considerably less room to talk. If you do everything from scratch, you aren't going to face a lawsuit.
But that's the point - it is not violating the licence. You may not like it, but it;s not in violation of the licence. This is the "Tivo problem" all over again. What Tivo were doing wasn't against the GPLv2, so something was done to shut all that down, and we've ended up with GPLv3.
I'm sure there will be more "but that's not what we meant! you're using it wrong!" wailing from the sidelines and we'll have a GPLv4 that will put a stop to it.
Re: (Score:2)
"the entire work, as a whole" - GPL license (Score:3)
You are free to sell image sets that can be used with WordPress and user any license you wish . However, if you want to distribute my code with it as a complete theme, the only license you have for distributing my code is if you distribute the whole thing as GPL. Icons and CSS COULD be sold as completely separate works, but that would mean
Quoted the plain text of the license, silly (Score:3, Interesting)
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.
This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.
I don't understanding what it's implying, you say? That's not an implication, that's a plain declaration, and in case any
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the effect of the "mere aggregation" clause (the paragraph after 5(d) in GPLv3), which means a distributor can distribute something that is "the work" alongside (and potentially intermingled with) something that isn't "the work" without causing the two to become mixed and without requiring their additional content to be GPL-licensed. The GPL only requires the two to be considered the same work if one is actually derivative of the other. It would be pretty hard to argue that CSS or images ar
Re:This is what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
dual licensing is a licensing issue. Nothing about free software prevents you from making money off it, that argument has never been true. Look at redhat.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing prevents you from selling it, but selling it is not realistic. Redhat is about the worst example you could possibly use.
Re: (Score:3)
really? why? They did so successfully. They literally sold box cds as indicated. They are selling their software, even if people are paying for support.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The cost of their boxed units was to cover the cost of manufacture the packaging, manual, and accompanying service contract. The software itself was inconsequential to the cost.
They don't sell Redhat. They sell support for Redhat.
That's the case of ALL software now. (Score:2, Informative)
How often is it said "You haven't bought the software, you've bought a license"?
So Microsoft Windows, you buy the license which is ONLY the limited right to install. No manual, no service contract (if OEM).
So does this mean that you can't sell closed source software?
Must do.
So then why single out OSS software for this "problem"? It exists for all software that is under copyright.
Re: (Score:3)
They absolutely did sell boxed packages of Linux. This was very important in the days when people didn't usually have decent internet connection speeds; and could still be useful today if stuck on dial up.
Re:This is what happens (Score:4, Informative)
Redhat doesn't sell software.
They sell subscription to software, which in practice is selling software. You go to them, you pay money, you get software.
Re:This is what happens (Score:4, Informative)
I remember 10 years ago I actually saw a retail boxed package of Red Hat Linux in a store in a small northern Wisconsin town, I thought it was funny.
The software in the box was of course "free". The box itself, the manual, the support, and the media inside the box cost $39.95.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember 10 years ago I actually saw a retail boxed package of Red Hat Linux in a store in a small northern Wisconsin town, I thought it was funny.
Why is that funny?
I bought a boxed set of Redhat 5.2 for £50 in 1998 or 1999, which consisted of several CDs, some a fantastic installation manual and some other books.
The software in the box was of course "free"
Free as in speech not beer. I actually bought it mostly for the software and a bit for the dead tree manual and I knew that it wa otherwise
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Companies have formed around developing and supporting free software. You just change the business model away from selling per-unit packages into selling services and support. There are even people who contract to create software who will then retain rights to software, minus the customer's tweaks, and release that as free software elsewhere.
There's a lot more to software than the original creation of it. The vast majority of all programmers don't write everything from scratch, instead they are modifying
"certifying", a trusted brand, selecting, integrat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
it is difficult to make money with free software, more so than commercial software.
I have seen no evidence that this is true. Most people that start a free software business fail. Most people that start a proprietary software business fail. But among the people I know, the failure rate for the former is lower.
Re: (Score:3)
Free software and money aren't diametrically opposite, many programmers are getting paid in order to write free software (like, most developers of the linux kernel).
Stop spouting bullshit for the grace of the flying spaghetti monster!
Re: (Score:3)
If I make free software that looks terrible, and someone else pretties it up, complies with the terms of the license, and manages to sell a product, good for them.
This is really no different from the debates around proprietary blobs in open source. Some people want freedom as a matter of principle. Some people want it for simplicity, so that you know any drop-in replacement is distributable.
And of course there are those who simply don't want to keep track of who has which rights - and let's not forget tho
Re: (Score:2)
Selling the product is not the problem, restricting the distribution is. Are you going to be happy if someone takes your terrible looking product then essentially limits it's distribution because they have just prettied up some css and images? What if this new product becomes more popular than yours, what if this new product starts making lots of money while your project dies in obscurity?
I'm not seeing the issue here.
The distribution of the original product and code will not be limited by this scenario, nor will the opportunity for buyers to buy it, if its the best product on the market.
If the product dies in obscurity because it isn't pretty enough, perhaps the developer needs to brush up on his or her design skills, or hire a professional.