MPAA 'University Toolkit' Violated Copyright > Dumb...

reply to B

Re: Dumb...

said by B:

I understand; that's well written and sounds well-meaning, but isn't it just a bit ridiculous? The GPL is "holding back" these projects because the stubborn writers of the code YOU WANT TO SELL won't let you do it? But... they have no obligation to let you sell their code on your terms! You're perfectly free to seek separate alternative licenses from those developers or to seek alternatives, as you've done.

Why aren't you just as mad at all the OTHER developers (you know, your closed-source competitors who write software that competes with yours) for not letting you freely redistribute /resell THEIR code on your terms? Why be angry only with GPL developers?

I understand your point, but it's just backwards. It's only "holding back" projects that seek to close up their sources, like your own. Agreed, I suppose that much is arguably "viral".

That said, I'm certainly glad you're respecting the license anyhow! Lesser companies don't even think twice.

-- B

P.S. I'd point out how funny the part about "damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code" is for someone who wants to take advantage of redistributed "Free" (GPL) software, but I think it's self-apparent...

Okay. Being neither a lawyer nor a hard core developer I can't really argue with your conclusions, though from my limited understanding there are ways to honor the GPL while keeping the sources of your "value added" parts closed. (Diffs and hashes and 3rd party audits, etc. After all, if you can prove that the GPL sources you DO provide recompile back to the corresponding pieces of GPL binary you ship, that should be enough.)

I mean, lots of companies do it! I come across them all the time, and some of them even appear to make money. Fonality / Trixbox is one that I was just looking at a few days ago. They have a "Free" version and several paid premium versions, but ALL of them see to be GPL licensed.

»www.trixbox.com/about-us/terms-a···nditions

They do have a more closed, hosted companion service.

No, I don't have any idea how they keep from getting ripped off when their paid customers decide to redistribute. Frankly, if it takes going to the evil lengths that Sveasoft has gone to (essentially waging a war against its own customers) then I'd rather people just take your approach and stay closed.

-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function

reply to Matt3

said by Matt3:

said by B:

I understand; that's well written and sounds well-meaning, but isn't it just a bit ridiculous? The GPL is "holding back" these projects because the stubborn writers of the code YOU WANT TO SELL won't let you do it? But... they have no obligation to let you sell their code on your terms! You're perfectly free to seek separate alternative licenses from those developers or to seek alternatives, as you've done.

Why aren't you just as mad at all the OTHER developers (you know, your closed-source competitors who write software that competes with yours) for not letting you freely redistribute /resell THEIR code on your terms? Why be angry only with GPL developers?

I understand your point, but it's just backwards. It's only "holding back" projects that seek to close up their sources, like your own. Agreed, I suppose that much is arguably "viral".

That said, I'm certainly glad you're respecting the license anyhow! Lesser companies don't even think twice.

-- B

P.S. I'd point out how funny the part about "damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code" is for someone who wants to take advantage of redistributed "Free" (GPL) software, but I think it's self-apparent...

The GPL is too vague ... we aren't modifying any of the GPL code we use, but the guts of our software is patented. What's to stop someone from forcing us to open our code and prove it's not violating the GPL?

We enjoy supporting the FOSS community ... as I said we donate to every open source project we utilize ... and those amounts will do nothing but go up as we make more money ... but just because I want to embed a SQL server in my code doesn't mean I should have to expose HOW I use it. If I take your SQL server source code and modify it, then by all means hell yes I should release that modified portion of the code ... but the GPL is too vague and being sued or having to sue because someone is claiming "fair use under the GPL" could sink companies like us.

reply to Matt3
Dont you know that PostgreSQL is released with the same license that mysql is using? So you better pull the plug on that move quickly.

reply to Matt3
I will stand corrected, the PostgreSQL server is released under the BSD license.