Hello list,
I would like to have some sort of official statement on the following question:
When I distribute a program under the terms of the GPL I am allowed to ask a fee for this. Though the recipients/customers are entitled to distribute what they get from me for free or not, I can ask for money to distribute my program.
Then there is the GPL 3b
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
That clearly says I must give the sources for my application for a very low fee or for free.
My question is - if the general format of my application is source code (PHP for example) must I then give the sources according to this part of the GPL or can I ask for any fee?
Background: I am involved in a GPLed project and we have decided to distribute our application for free. Some companies have programmed add-ons for our application and are not willing to give us the sources for free. They distribute the sources (PHP programs are normally distributed as source files as it is an interpreted language) for a fee, for example $280.
Is that allowed? Or can I ask them under the terms of GPL 3 to send me the sources for the physical costs?
Another question - directly related. If a company has modified our program and we ask them for the sources - can they say: We have to update the sources to delete the customer related data and that will take 20 hours at $70 an hour so pay $1400 to receive the sources?
This is a very important question for me and our project. Please help.
Jan Wildeboer
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 11:58:43PM +0200, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
Hello list,
I would like to have some sort of official statement on the following question:
[cut]
GPL doesn't give you right to request the sources. They may not give you them or require any fee they want. This clause applies ONLY to binary-only distribution. If they haven't given/sold you the binary, they don't have to give you the sources.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
GPL doesn't give you right to request the sources. They may not give you them or require any fee they want. This clause applies ONLY to binary-only distribution. If they haven't given/sold you the binary, they don't have to give you the sources.
So I can deduct this:
If a binary is distributed for a fee I am entitled to receive the sources according to GPL 3b at a minimum charge covering only the costs of the physical transfer.
If the usual format are sources there is no way to force the distributor to send me the sources for a minimum charge covering only the costs of the physical transfer.
Is this coorect? And does it reflect the general philosophy of the Free Software community?
As I may not put restrictions on top of the GPL I have no way of enforcing the general philosophy of our project (sources are available for free)?
Is that something that other see as a flaw in the GPL? Or am I alone with my opinion?
Jan Wildeboer
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 12:24:49AM +0200, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
GPL doesn't give you right to request the sources. They may not give you them or require any fee they want. This clause applies ONLY to binary-only distribution. If they haven't given/sold you the binary, they don't have to give you the sources.
So I can deduct this:
If a binary is distributed for a fee I am entitled to receive the sources according to GPL 3b at a minimum charge covering only the costs of the physical transfer.
Only if YOU got this binary, you are entitled to get the sources. The fact that someone distributes binary or sources to other people doesn't entitle you to anything.
If the usual format are sources there is no way to force the distributor to send me the sources for a minimum charge covering only the costs of the physical transfer.
There is no way to force the distributor, no matter if he distributes binaries or not.
Is this coorect? And does it reflect the general philosophy of the Free Software community?
Yes. Yes.
As I may not put restrictions on top of the GPL I have no way of enforcing the general philosophy of our project (sources are available for free)?
You don't have any way.
Is that something that other see as a flaw in the GPL? Or am I alone with my opinion?
It's not a flaw. Licence that would force you to distribute code (sources or binary) that you wanted to keep for yourself would be non-free according to DFSG and OSI definition.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]
If a binary is distributed for a fee I am entitled to receive the sources according to GPL 3b at a minimum charge covering only the costs of the physical transfer.
Only if YOU got this binary, you are entitled to get the sources. The fact that someone distributes binary or sources to other people doesn't entitle you to anything.
Wrong. Clause 3b from the GPL:
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
Somewhat related, the cool URI of the week: http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi
Question 6 deals with exactly this question.
Peace, Kalle - -- Kalle Svensson, http://www.juckapan.org/~kalle/ Student, root and saint in the Church of Emacs.
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 01:05:57AM +0200, Kalle Svensson wrote:
Hash: SHA1
[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]
If a binary is distributed for a fee I am entitled to receive the sources according to GPL 3b at a minimum charge covering only the costs of the physical transfer.
Only if YOU got this binary, you are entitled to get the sources. The fact that someone distributes binary or sources to other people doesn't entitle you to anything.
Wrong. Clause 3b from the GPL:
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
This is aplicable only in case when they distribute without binaries without sources, what isn't true in this case.
Somewhat related, the cool URI of the week: http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi
Question 6 deals with exactly this question.
As a side note, this quiz is repeating very popular misunderstanding that method of linking decides wheather something is considered 'derived work' or not. Just because you link 2 things (question 5) doesn't mean that they automatically create 'derived work' under American or other law. So correct answer for question 5 may be 1 in some circumstances.
Kalle Svensson wrote:
Somewhat related, the cool URI of the week: http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi
Question 6 deals with exactly this question.
Unfortunately I am not sure about this. This question deals with binary distributions. But our application is distributed in source form. We have been informed that when source code is the normal form of distribution GPL 3 is out of scope. I dont like this, but I cannot be sure if that is true or not. That's why I am asking.
The GPL seems to be focused on binary distribution. That's why I am sking if it is a flaw in the GPL when it comes to interpreted language that is usually distributed in source form. If in this cae GPL 3 is out of scope I am not able to receive the sources. That would be something I find hard to accept.
These companies I am talking of have programmed some add-ons that can only work with our application. They are of no use without our application. When GPL 3 is out of scope we are not even able to check the sources for correct license and copyright statements without paying the desired fee of these companies. That is something I find hard to believe.
Jan Wildeboer
Jan Wildeboer wrote:
Unfortunately I am not sure about this. This question deals with binary distributions. But our application is distributed in source form. We have been informed that when source code is the normal form of distribution GPL 3 is out of scope. I dont like this, but I cannot be sure if that is true or not. That's why I am asking.
The GPL seems to be focused on binary distribution. That's why I am sking if it is a flaw in the GPL when it comes to interpreted language that is usually distributed in source form. If in this cae GPL 3 is out of scope I am not able to receive the sources. That would be something I find hard to accept.
Technically §3 might be applicable if the source in an interpreted language can be considered "object code or executable form" as well.
However, the main point, in my understanding, is that §3 allows 3 options to the distributor. In this case, he obviously choses option a) because the source is identical to the "executable form". Therefore options b) and c) are not applicable.
In effect that's not really different from a compiled program which is distributed according to option a). You can either accept the distributor's terms (price etc.) and get the binary with sources, or find someone who did so and who is willing to share it with you.
Frank
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Only if YOU got this binary, you are entitled to get the sources. The fact that someone distributes binary or sources to other people doesn't entitle you to anything.
OK. So I have learned this: "Any third party" doesn't mean anyone, only those that have got the program - may it be binary or sources - from the distributor.
There is no way to force the distributor, no matter if he distributes binaries or not.
And it also doesn't make a difference if the distributor's work is merely a change in our sources we have decided to distribute for free. So when any company decides to take our project and distribute it for money there is no way for us to enforce them to comply to our policy.
But when any of his customers that has paid the fee decides to distribute the program (binary or sources) for free the distributor has to accept this as the right of distribution is part of the GPL
Is that something that other see as a flaw in the GPL? Or am I alone with my opinion?
It's not a flaw. Licence that would force you to distribute code (sources or binary) that you wanted to keep for yourself would be non-free according to DFSG and OSI definition.
So in the case we are facing we MUST pay the distributor to gain access to a derived work that we programmed? But as soon as we have paid we are entitled to distribute again for free at our will?
If that is the case, I will at least know how to react.
But I guess that will still allow me to inform our community of the fact that a certain company has decided to not follow the rules we would like to see followed but cannot enforce. Or is that something we are not allowed to do as we may not put any restrictions on the GPL? It is our philosophy to distribute our project for free and we ask all contributors to do the same. But as we are not allowed to put restrictions like this on top of the GPL I am a bit confused of what I can do and what I am not allowed to do.
But thanks anyway for helping me understand the GPL better.
Jan Wildeboer
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 01:23:50AM +0200, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Only if YOU got this binary, you are entitled to get the sources. The fact that someone distributes binary or sources to other people doesn't entitle you to anything.
OK. So I have learned this: "Any third party" doesn't mean anyone, only those that have got the program - may it be binary or sources - from the distributor.
This "any thind party" option applies to everyone but only in case when they distribute binaries without accompanying sources.
There is no way to force the distributor, no matter if he distributes binaries or not.
And it also doesn't make a difference if the distributor's work is merely a change in our sources we have decided to distribute for free.
GPL doesn't give any additional rights to original authors.
So when any company decides to take our project and distribute it for money there is no way for us to enforce them to comply to our policy.
If you want to "enforce policy" you have to write it in licence. If your policy is "forcing everyone to disclose sources" then GPL is not right choice for you.
Of course you can try persuasion etc.
But when any of his customers that has paid the fee decides to distribute the program (binary or sources) for free the distributor has to accept this as the right of distribution is part of the GPL
Yes. Everyone who got sources may distribute them.
Is that something that other see as a flaw in the GPL? Or am I alone with my opinion?
It's not a flaw. Licence that would force you to distribute code (sources or binary) that you wanted to keep for yourself would be non-free according to DFSG and OSI definition.
So in the case we are facing we MUST pay the distributor to gain access to a derived work that we programmed? But as soon as we have paid we are entitled to distribute again for free at our will?
Yes.
But remember that you didn't program it. Part that you want was programmed by them. Part that you programmed you already have anyway.
If that is the case, I will at least know how to react.
But I guess that will still allow me to inform our community of the fact that a certain company has decided to not follow the rules we would like to see followed but cannot enforce. Or is that something we are not allowed to do as we may not put any restrictions on the GPL? It is our philosophy to distribute our project for free and we ask all contributors to do the same. But as we are not allowed to put restrictions like this on top of the GPL I am a bit confused of what I can do and what I am not allowed to do.
Of course GPL doesn't limit your free speech rights.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Yes. Everyone who got sources may distribute them.
OK. Thanks.
Yes.
But remember that you didn't program it. Part that you want was programmed by them. Part that you programmed you already have anyway.
The problem is that this company has offered us to give us the sources when they think they are stable. On the other hand they are already 'selling' it to anyone they can get hold of. We have asked them that when they are distributing already why they still consider the sources to be not fit enough to show them to us. They have answered that they are not willing to discuss GPL-stuff with us anymore :-( And they claimed that I am not allowed to tell that to anyone because they have a disclaimer in all their eMail that prohibits us to disclose any communication with them. They also told us that all of their customers had to sign an NDA that will make sure that we will never be able to use their sources. Something I am not willing to accept. I have already received their sources from an Anonymous Customer with the suggestion to publish them as contribution. But as the company has threatened me with legal consequences I am a bit scared to do this, though the GPL woould allow me to do this.
A complex situation. I have not seen the NDA and I will not aks for it as that could cause severe problems for Anonymous. If that is what the GPL allows I am not sure if it is the right license for our project.
Of course GPL doesn't limit your free speech rights.
Seeing the NDA stuff I can only hope.
Jan Wildeboer
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 01:57:04AM +0200, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Yes. Everyone who got sources may distribute them.
OK. Thanks.
Yes.
But remember that you didn't program it. Part that you want was programmed by them. Part that you programmed you already have anyway.
The problem is that this company has offered us to give us the sources when they think they are stable. On the other hand they are already 'selling' it to anyone they can get hold of. We have asked them that when they are distributing already why they still consider the sources to be not fit enough to show them to us. They have answered that they are not willing to discuss GPL-stuff with us anymore :-( And they claimed that I am not allowed to tell that to anyone because they have a disclaimer in all their eMail that prohibits us to disclose any communication with them.
"Disclaimer in email" doesn't have much legal meaning. If you didn't sign anything, I doubt any court would take their side.
They also told us that all of their customers had to sign an NDA that will make sure that we will never be able to use their sources.
This is illegal under GPL's "no additional restrictions" clause. As original copyright owner you can sue them now. But consult some local lawyer if you want to.
Unfortunatelly the law isn't clear what to do if part of a deal is unenforcable. There are two possibilities: * just unenforcable part (NDA) will be canceled, and the rest (GPL) should still apply. * whole transaction, as illegal, will be canceled, all money and cds transfered back and all licencee's right canceled.
You should consult some local lawyer because this varies from country to country and from case to case which scenario applies.
Something I am not willing to accept. I have already received their sources from an Anonymous Customer with the suggestion to publish them as contribution. But as the company has threatened me with legal consequences I am a bit scared to do this, though the GPL woould allow me to do this.
A complex situation. I have not seen the NDA and I will not aks for it as that could cause severe problems for Anonymous. If that is what the GPL allows I am not sure if it is the right license for our project.
GPL doesn't allow such NDAs. You are allowed to sue them for copyright infringement.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
GPL doesn't allow such NDAs. You are allowed to sue them for copyright infringement.
Not?
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA
Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement? Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.
You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else until the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version, but in this scenario the client will choose not to exercise that right.
Now if the 'evil' company has such an NDA signed by the client I am lost, am I not?
Jan Wildeboer
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 02:29:09AM +0200, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
GPL doesn't allow such NDAs. You are allowed to sue them for copyright infringement.
Not?
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA
That's not what happened. The client didn't contract that company to develop changes for them and wait to release the sources untill they said 'ok'.
What happened is that a company changed your program and is now selling it, distributing it, but under a NDA, effectively removing the righs of the client for redistribution (or so they hoped).
For instance, you can accept a contract develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.
You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, butagree not to release them to anyone else until the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
In your case, GPL-covered code is being distributed under a NDA, against the GPL.
The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version, but in this scenario the client will choose not to exercise that right.
In your case, the client doesn't have much choice, does it? It had signed a NDA forcing it to keep the source secret. But that violates the GPL, your copyright on the code, and so they have no longer any right to distribute your software with or without any changes.
Now if the 'evil' company has such an NDA signed by the client I am lost, am I not?
The examples you gave were for clients having companies sign a NDA, not the other way around.
Regards, Luciano Rocha
PS: is it 'a NDA' or 'an NDA'?
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 02:29:09AM +0200, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
GPL doesn't allow such NDAs. You are allowed to sue them for copyright infringement.
Not?
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA
Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement? Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.
You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, butagree not to release them to anyone else until the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version, but in this scenario the client will choose not to exercise that right.
Now if the 'evil' company has such an NDA signed by the client I am lost, am I not?
What this point seems to describe (now we entered 'labour law', I know only Polish law about this, and I'm not sure if it's the same as in your country) is contract for developement where client get all the copyrights (`autorskie prawa majatkowe' ~ `financial author's rights'). to the client (`umowa o dzielo' ~ `work of art deal').
As a employee/contractor you didn't get any licence from your employer/client - that is, it hasn't been distributed to you. You just use it as part of work.
In any case this has completely nothing to do with making customers sign NDA and works only because from legal standpoint, the program hasn't been distributed/licensed to you.
On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 00:24, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
As I may not put restrictions on top of the GPL I have no way of enforcing the general philosophy of our project (sources are available for free)?
Can I ask you why you would like to enforce to distribute GPLed programs for free? This is one of the examples of success stories about companies being able to make profit with GPL, where's the problem?
Is that something that other see as a flaw in the GPL? Or am I alone with my opinion?
I cannot see any flaw, you decide to make your program available for free, the other company does not. Hint: you are not obliged to release your program for free to anyone, you may also decide to make it a available for free to some and make other paying for it (of course the ones who buy it will have all the granted freedoms as usual).
Simo.
On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 09:22, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 00:24, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
As I may not put restrictions on top of the GPL I have no way of enforcing the general philosophy of our project (sources are available for free)?
Can I ask you why you would like to enforce to distribute GPLed programs for free? This is one of the examples of success stories about companies being able to make profit with GPL, where's the problem?
Sorry, just read the rest of the thread and saw that company is actually violating the GPL! As other said NDA that restict the 4 liberties are not allowed under the GPL terms, and such practice will make the infringing company unable to distribute anything untill the copyright owner change it's mind as the GPL is void for them now.
Jan, I would advice you to contact the FSF in private to work out a solution with GPL experts before trying any legal action (that you would be totally entitle to do if your statements about the NDA are true).
Simo.
Jan Wildeboer jan.wildeboer@gmx.de wrote:
Hello list,
Hello Jan,
For official statements, I think some of your questions are dealt with in the GPL FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
HTH,
MJR
MJ Ray wrote:
Hello Jan,
For official statements, I think some of your questions are dealt with in the GPL FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Hi MJ Ray,
The problem with the FAQ is that they seem to avoid the main question I am asking. The GPL-FAQ doesn't clearly state what happens when I don't distribute binaries but sources only.
Also, this entry from the FAQ seems to be a contradiction to GPL 3b:
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
Whereas GPL 3b says that I may only:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
'For a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution' is different from 'the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.' which may be any fee.
Or am I brutally wrong here?
Jan Wildeboer
Jan Wildeboer jan.wildeboer@gmx.de wrote:
The problem with the FAQ is that they seem to avoid the main question I am asking. The GPL-FAQ doesn't clearly state what happens when I don't distribute binaries but sources only.
It seems to deal with it, although indirectly.
[...]
Whereas GPL 3b says that I may only:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three [...]
But that is a subclause of: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
So 3 (and therefore 3b) is concerned with the case where you offer only binaries for download initially. I think PHP can be compiled these days anyway?
Or am I brutally wrong here?
No, just not reading the entire clause which is puzzling you, I think.
Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts. It is really appreciated.
I will try to express what are the results for me and ask yous to correct me when I am wrong. I guess we will write some sort of manifest for our project to define our projects policy and the way we interpret and work with the GPL.
* Anyone is allowed to write modules/add-ons for our project and distribute them for any fee they would like to charge. They may decide to only send the sources when the fee has been payed. We as the core developers of this project can only kindly ask anyone to send us the sources when they want them to be reviewed or integrated in our project.
* If these add-ons/modules are integrated in our work the whole work is under the GPL with all consequences.
* Noone can limit the rights of distribution when the customer has received the sources. Anyone that has paid any company a fee for their add-ons/modules is entitled to distribute this derived work at any rate they want. When the customer decides to share the sources as a contribution on our projects site the company that developed the add-on(module cannot do anything against this.
* We can define that a company that is not willing to share the sources with the community in the way we do it (for free, immediate release) is not allowed to announce his product in our forums as we have clearly written that that will be seen as commercial advertising which is not allowed in the forums.
I hope I have learned my lesson well :-)
Thanks for your support.
Jan Wildeboer