Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulhauggis | Hacker News Reader

You are allowed to sell GPL software as long as you also give out the source and a copy of the original license.

If this goes against the "spirit of the license", there should be provisions against it.

I also would like to know how this is a "free" license. The author is basically saying, you can use my source code, but only in the ways that I agree to.

This doesn't sound very free to me.

This is the reason why companies should stop using GPL software in their applications.

View on HN

> I also would like to know how this is a "free" license. The author is basically saying, you can use my source code, but only in the ways that I agree to.

When the "ways that I agree to" are that you must provide your users with the following 4 things

> The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

> The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

I don't see how it's not a free license. Unless your idea of freedom is the right to monopolistic and rent seeking behaviour. Which I guess is a perfectly legitimate freedom to want, personally I just don't have any desire to give it you.

If this goes against the "spirit of the license", there should be provisions against it.

It doesn't. RMS encourages people to sell GPL licensed software, written by them or not, and to charge as much as they can or want.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

It seems like the author is aware of this: https://plus.google.com/108413286958999778262/posts/UTSF2mZ7...

But besides that, I think he overreacts a bit. Maybe my google-fu is not strong today but I couldn't find any of the forks he is talking about.

Did you even read the article? He says "one fork is being sold with a comercial [sic] license". Commercial licence != GPL.

I don't know the terms of the commercial licence in question. But GPL programs can be sold.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMone... Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney) Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Selling (or for that matter, distribution of any kind) GPL software under a different licence is not allowed. If you want to sell, you have to keep the GPL licence.

Given the general confusion in the post over what the GPL actually means, and what they thinks it means, It's not a given that the author doesn't just think that "Being Sold == Commercial Licence"

It's possible he means something like an EULA, but I can't seem to find any solid information on any of these three products (which have incredibly generic names) to check. It's not allowed to redistribute GPL software with added license requirements (as often found in an EULA), since you can't add restrictions on downstream users other than those already in the GPL.

Commercial license for what? Support?

Until there is more evidence this is just a developer who misunderstands what the license entitles others to do with his work.

oh please; "This is the reason why companies should stop using GPL software in their applications." ?

You're just trolling now.

There are plenty of reasons not to use GPL, but obscure reasons to do with the 'spirit of the license' isn't one of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com