Chante Wrote:

> > there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a patented technology in a GPL3 software.
> 
> Explain that statement please. Do you wish to retract it?

GPL software cannot be sold for profit, so even if the author would be charged a fee 1% per sold copy the patent holder will get 0 anyway.

"Kagamin" <spam@here.lot> wrote in message news:j8819j$667$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>
>> "Kagamin" <spam@here.lot> wrote in message news:j83tie$abu$1@digitalmars.com...
>> >> You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.
>> >
>> > Most notably GPL protects the rights of your users. Are you thinking
>> > about
>> > your users?
>>
>> That's just backwards, GPL *limits* user rights. For instance, the right
>> to
>> license my software however I damn well choose.
>
> Licenses like boost exist to allow corporations to make money on free code while restricting users. Of course GPL prohibits this.

It's free code. The whole point is to let people go ahead and use it.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:

> Chante Wrote:
>
> > > there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a patented technology in a GPL3 software.
> >
> > Explain that statement please. Do you wish to retract it?
>
> GPL software cannot be sold for profit, so even if the author would be charged a fee 1% per sold copy the patent holder will get 0 anyway.
>

Where'd you get that silly notion?  It's libre, not gratis.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote in message news:j87qki$2pnb$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 10/25/2011 04:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> It was indeed truthful. And as far as reasoning: The GPL propogates itself through what it touches. That's what's considered "viral", period.
>
> Yes, it has *some* viral aspects. That doesn't mean "Free as in Herpes" isn't deceitful mudslinging.
>
>> All these rediculous nitpicks about "useful purpose" and "voluntary acts" are absolutely no more sensible than saying "No, it's not viral because it's not made out of nucleic acids!!" Doesn't matter if you like the GPL or not: Face it, the shoe fits.
>
> Nitpicking? Are you serious? GPL has provided immense benefits and has been voluntarily adopted around the world,

So have the non-viral free licenses.

> and it's "nitpicking" to
> criticize somebody who says "Free as in Herpes"?
>

Yes. Because the statement is clearly intended as tongue-in-cheek.

>> As for the comparison with D, if someone makes a negative statement about D that *is* truthful, even said in a joking tounge-in-cheek mannar, I do *not* get pissed off or up in arms about it. And even when it isn't truthful, I usually just simply correct them.
>
> *snort* You of the midnight, drunken rants about Google, or rants about pretty much anything.

Heh :) I certainly get pissed about about things, but not about statements that are true.

> Sure, you "simply correct" people and don't get
> pissed off. Are you going to make me dig up examples?

I said "usually", and even that was only referring to non-truthful statements about D.

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> > Licenses like boost exist to allow corporations to make money on free code while restricting users. Of course GPL prohibits this.
> 
> It's free code. The whole point is to let people go ahead and use it.

Anyone can use GPL, it has no problem with it.

Brad Anderson Wrote:

> > GPL software cannot be sold for profit, so even if the author would be charged a fee 1% per sold copy the patent holder will get 0 anyway.
> >
> 
> Where'd you get that silly notion?  It's libre, not gratis.
> 
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

I didn't say "not allowed" I said "can't". You can't make money from a link to GPL FAQ either. I was talking about facts not hypotheses.

"Brad Anderson" <eco@gnuk.net> wrote in message news:mailman.475.1319604042.24802.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:
>
>> Chante Wrote:
>>
>> > > there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a patented technology in a GPL3 software.
>> >
>> > Explain that statement please. Do you wish to retract it?
>>
>> GPL software cannot be sold for profit, so even if the author would be charged a fee 1% per sold copy the patent holder will get 0 anyway.
>>

Non-GPL free software can't realisticlly be sold at a profit either. Yea, it's *technically* allowed, but all you have to do is say "Hey all! No-cost version of the same damn thing over here...!!!" Hell, you can even position your no-cost version as pirated, except no one can stop you because it's totally legal. Seriously, anyone who *tried* to sell zlib/MIT/etc software would essentially be getting into the business of selling "guaranteed pre-pirated" products, and we all know how much companies like getting pirated. And even if they did do it and make money, well, you were already just giving it away, so you wouldn't have been getting any of that money in the first place. And if *that* happened, you can just change your mind and start selling it yourself, even close up the newer versions, etc...

Yea, you can come up with a bunch of contrived "got ripped-off" scenarios, but ultimately the risk is very, very low, and there's many avenues of recourse that don't involve the courts (which most open-source authors would never be able to aggressively pursue anyway). There's already lots of zlib/MIT/etc software authors out there, how many of them have gotten ripped off from money that would have otherwise ended up in their pocket? Worrying about it is akin to picking up "getting mobbed as a result of winning the lottery" insurance.

>
> Where'd you get that silly notion?  It's libre, not gratis.
>
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
>

FSF keeps banging that drum, but it's only true in theory. Realistically, libre tends to force gratis unless there's some significant non-libre component that's required, such as game assets.

What you *can* do with GPL is dual-license with a paid commercial alternative. But then it's *not* the GPL version that's being sold, it's the non-GPL, non-libre version, *and* the public at large doesn't benefit from improvements to it. So even then, you're still not selling GPL software for a profit, you're just selling the ability to [in the eyes of those who view GPL as more free than zlib/MIT/etc] reduce the user's freedoms.

"Kagamin" <spam@here.lot> wrote in message news:j884ui$cra$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>
>> > Licenses like boost exist to allow corporations to make money on free
>> > code
>> > while restricting users. Of course GPL prohibits this.
>>
>> It's free code. The whole point is to let people go ahead and use it.
>
> Anyone can use GPL, it has no problem with it.

I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code, why'd they even make it free in the first place?

I'm not getting the point on this, so I have to ask again what you mean and this time I will do it by analysis (breaking it into pieces) and you can then see what I'm not getting and hence tell me. (I read the follow-up posts but I still don't get it). It could very well be that my mind right now is locked-in to my own train of thought and I'm not able to escape it for all the other things currently on my mind (read, no brain-power to use for non-top-priority things).

"Kagamin" <spam@here.lot> wrote in message news:j881u4$79e$1@digitalmars.com...
> Chante Wrote:
>
>> > there's no mercantile reason

Paraphrased: There is no reason for a company in the business of selling software

>> > to restrict use of a patented technology

Why would they have gotten the patent if not to restrict the use of the patented thing? After R&D and associated costs, a company gets a patent to allow them to recover the R&D costs, and then some, from the exclusive right to sell (/produce?) the patented thing for a given period of time.

>> > in a GPL3 software.

Why would a company "void" their patent (i.e., effectively give up the exclusive right to sell/produce the patented thing) by stamping it "GPL"?

>>
>> Explain that statement please. Do you wish to retract it?
>
> GPL software cannot be sold for profit,

Well-known fact, OK.

> so even if the author

The software company that obtained the patent? Someone rendering the patent other than the patent holder? The latter is illegal, yes?

> would be charged a fee

"fee" what? "fee" upon whom? Who's "authoring" anything other than the patent holder with the exclusive right to sell/produce the patented thing?

> 1% per sold copy

???

> the patent holder will get 0 anyway.

Written as "conclusive in support of <whatever>" but the path to this "conclusion", and therefor this "conclusion", is, "non-sensical"?

****

Help me out here please. What am I missing?

On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 01:32 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[ . . . ]
> I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code, why'd they even make it free in the first place?

I have no problem with companies making money from FOSS by providing value added service or proprietary components, as long as they are clearly seen to be "giving back" to the FOSS community as a "quid pro quo".  What I object to is companies taking FOSS software, making a proprietary product from it, getting updates from the FOSS community for free, restricting product purchasers regarding the FOSS software and generally treating the FOSS community as a pool of slave labour to be milked.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder