Hi,
For those of you who might be interested, wrt my post in :
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2003-February/003775.html
As an experiment, I've implemented such a (somewhat modified) distribution scheme for a project of mine, PyKota (print quota solution for CUPS), as described on :
http://www.librelogiciel.com/software/PyKota/Download/action_Download
The interesting thing is that it seems to work.
Considering that the project begins, that it has no real documentation yet (command line help excepted), and that the public is small (I think), I can say that (to my great surprise) in 15 days I've already got one person who paid for the tarball, and several others who will push for the person in charge (with money) to pay.
Out of the persons who told me they will certainely pay, one excepted, they've already downloaded and used the CVS version. (of course I know not all will pay)
I thought this may be of some interest to the readers of this list.
Could this be an ethically correct solution to make "some" money out of Free Software ?
Comments, especially about the "ethically correct" part, are more than welcome.
Jerome Alet
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 10:55, Jerome Alet wrote:
As an experiment, I've implemented such a (somewhat modified) distribution scheme for a project of mine, PyKota (print quota solution for CUPS), as described on :
http://www.librelogiciel.com/software/PyKota/Download/action_Download
For branding your support / download service, the best way to do it register a Trademark on "Official PyKota", and let people know that "anything Pykota" is fine to use by everyone else.
Then even an evil foe can't use your branding name (you can sue) and if people start using "hacked Pykota" for releasing something and you know about it and, as announced, do nothing on the legal side, after a while you can't sue them (unless they go back to Official Pykota name), so everything should work neatly on the legal side. I'm not sure adding things to the license is the best way to do it, the GPL looks like it prohibits further restrictions.
I'm not a lawyer, may be FSF people can comment on it.
Note that(s I believe the scheme Ada Core Technologies is following with the Ada frontend to GCC which is called GNAT, the brand their release and service under names like "GNAT Pro" or "GNAT High Integrety Edition", etc...
Sincerely,
I don't see any GPL violations but I don't think this experiment will work.
The "Official Version" idea is a trademarks issue, not a copyright issue so the GPL doesn't cover it.
The Abisource developers use a similar idea, "Abiword" is their trademark, it is the name (or mark) of the program *as they distribute it*, if you alter the source and recompile, you have to call it a different name (they suggest "Abiword Personal").
The charging for downloads is ok too. If the program was compilable, binary downloads would not be required.
The reason I don't think this will work is on accout of it's hairyness. I also think it goes against the some of the technical benefits of Free software.
It adds hassle to aquiring a current copy of the source, and creates a financial disincentive to upgrading (the user would have to pay again (at some point)).
Something rms says may apply here, this distribution method creates and artificial block to getting the software, artificial since it is not part of developing or using the software and is not a required part of passing the software on to others. This takes away from the net value of the software.
He goes on to give the example of motorways, if a tool booth was placed half way between each junction, a very fair way to get drivers to pay for roads would emerge, but the roads system as a whole would be devalued since an artificial hassle has been added. Roads should be charged for in a less invasive, equally accurate way such as taxing petrol.
His advice for how individuals can make money from Free software is a little thinner, it seems to boil down to charging for giving tutorials, charging for adding features etc., and charging for support. (i.e. charge for you time (which is limited), not for copies (which require no resources)).
I'm not a lawyer either, and I'm not an FSF staff member, but I hope this helps anyway.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:31:09PM +0100, Laurent Guerby wrote:
I'm not sure adding things to the license is the best way to do it, the GPL looks like it prohibits further restrictions.
I'm not a lawyer, may be FSF people can comment on it.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
I don't see any GPL violations but I don't think this experiment will work.
Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"? Although an author cannot really violate the license on his own work :)
The "Official Version" idea is a trademarks issue, not a copyright issue so the GPL doesn't cover it.
The GPL probably ought to address it though, in much the same way that it addresses the matter of software patents. A trademark can be used to make a piece of software effectively non-free: if a trademark prevents you copying a piece of software, then you end up in with the problem people who want to distribute RedHat have.
The reason I don't think this will work is on accout of it's hairyness. I also think it goes against the some of the technical benefits of Free software.
I agree with this. I would propose a slightly different solution:
- people register to receive an official code - code allows people to access (for example) technical support on the website, etc., and possibly could be used to tie the extra services you offer into the software itself
You don't force people to register, you distribute the same version of the code all the time, and you give benefits to those people who do pay you for your work. Tieing those benefits into the software is a nice touch, I think - like issueing automatic notices of security fixes, etc.
I don't think you need to resort to trademarks to do this, which I think is slightly dodgy anyway. I don't think that there's anything wrong with providing benefits to your users via free software though - so long as you aren't required to sign up for a subscription, so long as it's optional, I think that's okay. In a way, it's a bit about building up relationships with your customers, I guess.
Cheers,
Alex.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:43:48PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
I don't see any GPL violations
Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"?
Nope. Copyright, patent, and tradmarks are all separate issues. Grouping them together (and calling them "Intelectual Property issues") will lead anyone to incorrect conclusions. Releasing a work under the GNU GPL doesn't permit someone else to call it "Microsoft Windows XP", that's a trademark of microsoft corporation. I don't think trademarks are a bad thing either, they allow people/companies to have an identity. I'm glad Microsoft can't use the Debian logo for software they write.
The GPL probably ought to address it though [...] A trademark can be used to make a piece of software effectively non-free: if a trademark prevents you copying a piece of software [...]
This is what happens when one lumps together separate issues. Trademarks can never prevent you from copying a piece of software. Copying is covered my copyright laws. Trademark laws ban people from using names and logos of other people/corporation to identify there work. (i.e. I can open a low quality burger outlet, but I can't call it "McDonalds") (...and microsoft can't open an office and call it "Free Software Foundation")
The reason I don't think this will work is on account of it's hairyness.
I agree with this. I would propose a slightly different solution:
[...]
I'd mostly agree with your solution (people register for support and email update services etc.).
I don't see a benefit in coupling support with permission to download official source, most people get their software from distos anyway. This is even more true of companies (the market one should really aim for if you want to make a living off Free software).
Ciaran O'Riordan
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:00:04PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:43:48PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
I don't see any GPL violations
Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"?
Nope. Copyright, patent, and tradmarks are all separate issues. Grouping them together (and calling them "Intelectual Property issues") will lead anyone to incorrect conclusions.
Sorry, I think you've really missed my point. I didn't conflate the naming issue into "intellectual property" - I don't know where you got that from.
What I am talking about is specifically this: the software is under the GPL, but if you download it you are not allowed to redistribute it under a certain name. I think this contradicts GPL.6:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
It sounds to me like a further restriction - that is the point I was making.
The GPL probably ought to address it though [...] A trademark can be used to make a piece of software effectively non-free: if a trademark prevents you copying a piece of software [...]
This is what happens when one lumps together separate issues.
So how is what I said different from:
(...) wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
This isn't "lumping together separate issues". This is addressing issues which can cause GPL'd software to be effectively non-free. I personally think trademarks can also be used to restrict the freedom of the user of GPL'd software, feel free to disagree. This isn't "IP" conflation.
Trademarks can never prevent you from copying a piece of software.
RedHat disagree with you: http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/
Trademark laws ban people from using names and logos of other people/corporation to identify there work.
But if the trademark is used within a piece of software, then that software has to be redistributed according to the wishes of the owner of the trademark until it is removed (if removal is possible).
"You may not name or brand your product "Red Hat," or use the Red Hat trademarks in any way, either on your product or in related advertising."
So if you copy a version of RedHat for a friend, you're not allowed to write "RedHat" on it anywhere. Linux Emporium and CheepLinux in the UK think this is a problem - CheepLinux rebrand all the RedHat they sell as "Cheeplinux GPL", Linux Emporium don't even seem to stock it at all now. That prevents people copying free software.
I'd mostly agree with your solution (people register for support and email update services etc.).
I don't see a benefit in coupling support with permission to download official source, most people get their software from distos anyway. This is even more true of companies (the market one should really aim for if you want to make a living off Free software).
I definitely agree with that sentiment, I'm not sure how successful it would be. But, I suppose we'll see!
Cheers,
Alex.
X-Comment-To: Alex Hudson, Paolo Gianrossi
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:28:29PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
What I am talking about is specifically this: the software is under the GPL, but if you download it you are not allowed to redistribute it under a certain name. I think this contradicts GPL.6:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
It sounds to me like a further restriction - that is the point I was making.
The GPL deals with the software, not with names. The name isn't put under the GPL.
The GNU people themselves make such restrictions for modifying the GPL. Have a look at this link: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
Trademarks can never prevent you from copying a piece of software.
RedHat disagree with you: http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/
I've read it, but I didn't find, where they disagree. They allow copying the software under a different name.
Trademark laws ban people from using names and logos of other people/corporation to identify there work.
But if the trademark is used within a piece of software, then that software has to be redistributed according to the wishes of the owner of the trademark until it is removed (if removal is possible).
It would be a violation if removal wouldn't be possible.
Linux Emporium don't even seem to stock it at all now. That prevents people copying free software.
Huh? Isn't the same software also available on other distributions?
P.S.: The company doesn't want to be named. So don't give them any credit by calling their name so often. Just forget their name. ;-)
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:35:01PM +0100, Andreas K. Foerster wrote:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
It sounds to me like a further restriction - that is the point I was making.
The GPL deals with the software, not with names.
But it also deals with things that affect the software. I'm saying that having naming constraints affects the distribution of the software.
The name isn't put under the GPL.
Yes, I agree with that. I'm not arguing about who has control over the name, I'm talking about the effect of that control on copying the software.
The GNU people themselves make such restrictions for modifying the GPL. Have a look at this link: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
Ah, but we already know the GPL is invariant, and not covered by itself :) I think that's beside the point.
Trademarks can never prevent you from copying a piece of software.
RedHat disagree with you: http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/
I've read it, but I didn't find, where they disagree. They allow copying the software under a different name.
"A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere."
If I have to modify a work - no matter how much work that actually is - then I say that violates freedom 2. I would then say that it isn't consistent with the GPL.
It would be a violation if removal wouldn't be possible.
Agreed. But I also think it's a "violation" if removal is forced. (I think probably "would be inconsistent" is a better phrase, violation sounds quite harsh).
Linux Emporium don't even seem to stock it at all now. That prevents people copying free software.
Huh? Isn't the same software also available on other distributions?
From a quick scan they don't seem to stock it. Dunno :) Didn't look too hard!
P.S.: The company doesn't want to be named. So don't give them any credit by calling their name so often. Just forget their name. ;-)
Agreed!!
Cheers,
Alex.
ahha. I headn't heard about the RedHat case, it seems they do disagree with me, and the confusion of copyright and trademarks is their fault, not yours like I thought (apologies). Looks like RedHat are stretching their interpretation of the law.
I suppose trademarks could impede Free software in other ways too: One of the benefits of FS is that you can choose any company to get support from, this would be quite a bit harder if companies weren't alowed to mention that they support RedHat(tm).
I don't think RedHats' claims about their rights under trademark laws would stand up in court. Maybe they've caused themselves some trouble by giving their company and there flagship product the same name ;)
Most people can ignore this issue since most don't use RedHat or whatever, but it's a useful discussion for sharing information before a similar case that does affect us pops up.
Ciaran O'Riordan (who is dissapointed with RedHat)
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:28:29PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:00:04PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:43:48PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
I don't see any GPL violations
Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"?
Nope. Copyright, patent, and tradmarks are all separate issues.
[...]
RedHat disagree with you: http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/
Alex Hudson writes:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
I don't see any GPL violations but I don't think this experiment will work.
Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"? Although an author cannot really violate the license on his own work :)
Well, i'm not a lawyer as well, but i think it's a meta-problem: you wouldn't violate YOUR software license, but you would violate the GPL itself: you want to use a "modified version" of the GPL, and this modification is a violation.
The GPL comes under the GPL... The goal of it is to make it impossible to limit liberties... What you do (on naming) is to change the license in order to limit a liberty: the freedom to rename or to use the name. Thus, i think this would be a meta-violation.
Just my .2$
cheers paolino
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:17:41PM +0100, Paolo Gianrossi wrote:
The GPL comes under the GPL... The goal of it is to make it impossible to
I do think this is incorrect. It is copyrighted by the FSF: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:17:41PM +0100, Paolo Gianrossi wrote:
Alex Hudson writes:
Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"? Although an author cannot really violate the license on his own work :)
Well, i'm not a lawyer as well, but i think it's a meta-problem: you wouldn't violate YOUR software license, but you would violate the GPL itself: you want to use a "modified version" of the GPL, and this modification is a violation.
I think Alex and You found a weak point with my current position.
So I wondered : what about the package tarball filename ? Seems like a complete distribution name but at a different scale.
Is the package filename part of the "source" code or not, or in other terms is the filename under which the package is redistributed (tarball) covered by the GNU GPL ?
Can I impose restrictions on the package file name, while still allowing to modify the version number (and the rest of the source) in any way the user see fit ?
I think obtaining a trademark on the package name itself is probably the solution here (not that I'd like to do that, actually), like say I obtain a trademark on "PyKota-Official" and distribute official packages as PyKota-Official-x.xx.tar.gz. Then I allow people to use the trademark only for "unmodified" official packages, while still allowing them to do whatever they like with the source.
Not sure if this makes sense at all, it seems to be what RH does, and I'm really not fond of this.
I'd just want to find a "correct-both-ways" path to do things.
It's time for me to rethink about the problem, it seems...
Thanks to all.
bye,
Jerome Alet
I do not think that Trademark really collide with the GPL. If you permit redistribution of the "original" source under the same name and only ask politely to change name for modifyed packages.
However to avoid any possible problem I would say that you may issue a Trademark on the Distribution, not the software itself.
Protecting the tarball name seem a really silly action to me, it would make you impossible to easily upgrade distro's.
Instead getting a Register Mark on the name PyKota and a Trademark on Pykota Official Distribution and pursuing the trademark on your boxes, while giving to anyone the ability to name the software itself "PyKota" or "PyKota whatever" would be a nice thing.
That way the software will suffer no problems while a whole distribution (with printed manuals, software, medium, boxes, whatever) or simply an "enriched" software package like the software + manuals + installation tool would be under the name Pykota Official Distribution that you may decide who have the ability to redistribute with that name.
Yes, that's exactly what RedHat does, but you do not have to be as stringent as RedHat if you do not want to, but what matter, the software will stay free.
I do not see this as a way to close down the software, the software will be 100% free, but a way to give guarantees that the original author is behind this distribution and have paid particular attention to it, or to add value, like a real guarantee/assurance on software, installation support services, whatever ...
Simo.
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 15:34, Jerome Alet wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:17:41PM +0100, Paolo Gianrossi wrote:
Alex Hudson writes:
Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"? Although an author cannot really violate the license on his own work :)
Well, i'm not a lawyer as well, but i think it's a meta-problem: you wouldn't violate YOUR software license, but you would violate the GPL itself: you want to use a "modified version" of the GPL, and this modification is a violation.
I think Alex and You found a weak point with my current position.
So I wondered : what about the package tarball filename ? Seems like a complete distribution name but at a different scale.
Is the package filename part of the "source" code or not, or in other terms is the filename under which the package is redistributed (tarball) covered by the GNU GPL ?
Can I impose restrictions on the package file name, while still allowing to modify the version number (and the rest of the source) in any way the user see fit ?
I think obtaining a trademark on the package name itself is probably the solution here (not that I'd like to do that, actually), like say I obtain a trademark on "PyKota-Official" and distribute official packages as PyKota-Official-x.xx.tar.gz. Then I allow people to use the trademark only for "unmodified" official packages, while still allowing them to do whatever they like with the source.
Not sure if this makes sense at all, it seems to be what RH does, and I'm really not fond of this.
I'd just want to find a "correct-both-ways" path to do things.
It's time for me to rethink about the problem, it seems...
Thanks to all.
bye,
Jerome Alet _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:52:12PM +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
I do not think that Trademark really collide with the GPL. If you permit redistribution of the "original" source under the same name and only ask politely to change name for modifyed packages.
OK.
Now that's what I've finally decided to do, and I've rephrased the website and documentation to remove any pending GPL problem, AFAICT.
Also, I don't want to play the trademark game.
From now on, the "official" package is fully modifiable, even the version number, under the terms of the GNU GPL. (It was already fully redistributable)
I just ask (not impose) to rename modified "official" packages.
Also the "official" package will contain compiled (HTML, PS, PDF) documentation, while the "unofficial" one, when obtained from CVS, will just contain the documentation source (docbook). People who redistribute the "unofficial" version are free to add compiled documentation though.
Thanks to all who helped.
Jerome Alet
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:43:48PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
The "Official Version" idea is a trademarks issue, not a copyright issue so the GPL doesn't cover it.
The GPL probably ought to address it though, in much the same way that it addresses the matter of software patents. A trademark can be used to make a piece of software effectively non-free: if a trademark prevents you copying a piece of software, then you end up in with the problem people who want to distribute RedHat have.
A trademark cannot prevent from copying the software, just from using the name. That's why for example "liniso.de" has this strange distribution named "green shoe". So just forget about your red hat and wear your green shoe. ;-)
BTW. isn't also "Linux" a trademark?
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
The reason I don't think this will work is on accout of it's hairyness. I also think it goes against the some of the technical benefits of Free software.
It adds hassle to aquiring a current copy of the source, and creates a financial disincentive to upgrading (the user would have to pay again (at some point)).
no : the CVS version will always be available.
it only adds hassle to get an "old" copy of the source, because the CVS version is always the latest one.
but either people learn how to use CVS, or they have to pay for the tarball (or them not willing to learn)
He goes on to give the example of motorways, if a tool booth was placed half way between each junction, a very fair way to get drivers to pay for roads would emerge, but the roads system as a whole would be devalued since an artificial hassle has been added. Roads should be charged for in a less invasive, equally accurate way such as taxing petrol.
Here there are two roads, and only one has a toll booth, the other one is toll free.
I think this scheme is very similar to French highways : you must pay to drive on them or you can drive on the smaller "national" road at its side for free. The 2 or maybe 3 French highways which are free, are free because there's no "national" road at their side (e.g. from Clermont-Ferrand to Montpellier, for those who know France)
Thanks a lot for your comments anyway.
Jerome Alet
His [RMS] advice for how individuals can make money from Free software is a little thinner, it seems to boil down to charging for giving tutorials, charging for adding features etc., and charging for support. (i.e. charge for you time (which is limited), not for copies (which require no resources)).
Do you have pointers on actual RMS wording?
Earning a living from free software development is still a problem.
Charging for your time rather than for copies. That is THE point to make the free software viable as a mean for a developper to earn his living without being as unfair as proprietary vendors can be.
It is fair to charge users for your actual work (how much time you spent), not for how_much_they_use_your_work like the "intellectual property" way to earn a living from developping software suggests.
If a developer had a mean to get paid for the time he spent (not more and not less) it would be viable to be professional free software developers, and not a hobbyist like Bill Gates called free software developers in his `open letter to hobbyists'. A developper may earn is living, but not get that rich (by missappropriating a part of the customers' resources), which is fair for him and for the society.
But by charging for giving tutorials, adding features or giving support, you only charge for your *extra* time. You can do so only if you have already spent a lot of time for free (as in beer) on the piece of software. What we lack is a mean of getting paid for the time actually spent on the basic software itself.
You cannot do that by charging users. To do so you would have to:
* Make your users register so they can use the software. That is not free software anymore.
or
* Know in advance the exact number of users that will use your software, impossible. And you would still charge for copies.
The only way to do so seems to be by external funding and sponsoring -- and better by public or non-profit organisations. Any other idea to get companies involved in the funding of free software whereas they may think that they should not fund software that their competitors will eventually use (as they will be free to do so)?
But the final truth might be somewhat cruel for developpers who want to earn their living by writing free software. Using, studying, modifying and distributing software should be inalienable freedoms. But getting paid enough to earn one's living cannot be such a freedom, as making software is such a funny thing that there will always be people to do it in their spare time even if they get no money for that.
-- Guillaume Ponce http://www.guillaumeponce.org/
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:55:06AM +0100, Jerome Alet wrote:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2003-February/003775.html
As an experiment, I've implemented such a (somewhat modified) distribution scheme for a project of mine,
I don't see anything that is different.
The GPL explicitly allows charging for distributing software: | You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and | you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. (section 1)
So, what's different?