Request re: the GPL and the revised licensing language in latest beta

[fdv]

Clause 8 is up to you. I was just using an example.

It does not apply in the United States or Canada. Use is not restricted "by patents or by copyrighted interface" here.

Transport is not restricted "by patents or by copyrighted interface" either.

I could have used a different example, like "reciting the source code out loud in a train station at noon." We place no restrictions on that, and it happens to be outside the scope of the license.

Reminder to all:

1) The license changed, this is all moot, we're just having friendly debate at this point, and

2) Pecan Pie is one of the greatest pies of all time, which you must agree to before running HFSLIP.

Edited May 11, 2009 by fdv

[jaclaz]

I could have used a different example, like "reciting the source code out loud in a train station at noon." We place no restrictions on that, and it happens to be outside the scope of the license.

It would be an interesting "event", though.

jaclaz

[TwistedLincoln]

It is extremely disappointing that TommyP would try to restrict HFSLIP's usage for commercial purposes. However his attempt is unsuccessful.

HFSLIP provides the following license statement:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. HFSLIP can be freely used for any personal non-commercial purposes.

Despite the arguments made in this thread, the issue of the GPL not allowing extra restrictions is irrelevant. Only downstream users are required to comply with the GPL -- the original copyright holder can add any restrictions they like, as they have full control over how they release the software.

The software is clearly licensed under the GPL as explicitly stated by the copyright holder via the script's source code. That means that all of the rights granted to downstream users by the GPL apply.

However, the next statement reads "HFSLIP can be freely used for any personal non-commercial purposes." This is NOT a further restriction, as many have suggested. It is a reaffirmation of a right that the GPL already gives you -- that is to freely use the program for non-commercial purposes. The fact that the author's intent might have been for it to mean "Any commerical use is prohibited" is irrelevant. That's not what the license says. Therefore any user (such as myself) that receives a copy of the full corresponding source code (which as HFSLIP is a script, is the program itself) can use, modify, and redistribute the program as allowed in the GPL.

Moreover, the license specifically states that you can redistribute HFSLIP under version 2 of the GPL, or ANY LATER VERSION. So one could redistribute HFSLIP under GPL v3, which as mentioned above, clearly states:

This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program

I am not a lawyer, but it is quite clear to me that you can clearly run HFSLIP for commercial purposes.

In summary:

1. HFSLIP is released under the GPL, either version 2 or later
   
2. The GPL allows you to run the program for any purpose (this is explicitly stated in version 3)
   
3. The "additional" statement that accompanies the GPL license simply states that you are allowed to use HFSLIP for non-commercial purposes. We already know that, as both version 2 and 3 of the GPL allows it.
   
4. Because the copyright author provides the software under a license that specifically allows for unlimited use of the program, and has added no other implicit restrictions to said license to the contrary, commercial use is therefore permitted.
   

If TommyP really wants to restrict commercial usage, he should release future versions of HFSLIP under his own custom license which can say whatever he wants. He can legally add additional restrictions to the GPL (such as specifically saying commercial use is prohibited), however that would make the program unable to be legally distributed at all by downstream users, as those additional restrictions are incompatible with the GPL. As that would totally defeat the purpose of using the GPL as a license, it would be better for him to write his own license than to use the GPL, especially since it would be confusing and unfair to users.

I have saved a copy of the latest HFSLIP on my server. Should TommyP decide to modify the license of future versions to such that they cannot be run for commercial purposes, I will fork HFSLIP and publish my own version under GPLv3 (as allowed by the current license), and make it available for free on my website.

[jaclaz]

If TommyP really wants to restrict commercial usage, he should release future versions of HFSLIP under his own custom license which can say whatever he wants. He can legally add additional restrictions to the GPL (such as specifically saying commercial use is prohibited), however that would make the program unable to be legally distributed at all by downstream users, as those additional restrictions are incompatible with the GPL. As that would totally defeat the purpose of using the GPL as a license, it would be better for him to write his own license than to use the GPL, especially since it would be confusing and unfair to users.

Exactly.

I have saved a copy of the latest HFSLIP on my server. Should TommyP decide to modify the license of future versions to such that they cannot be run for commercial purposes, I will fork HFSLIP and publish my own version under GPLv3 (as allowed by the current license), and make it available for free on my website.

Of course anyone is free to do whatever he wants, I personally find the whole idea unfair.

TommyP may have wrongly used the GPL, but his intention of making the app available for personal, non-commercial, usage only is quite clear.

Thus, legally you would be more than justified, but morally you wouldn't.

And of course the "legal" part is just BS, I don't think that any "amateur" (no offence intended ) programmer has the financial resources to actually enforce it.

The limitation to non-commercial use is pretty much ineffective without a way to enforce it, and the only hope is the moral aspect of the thing, including, in some (usually very large corporations), internal ethical codes/audits.

jaclaz