Boston Linux & UNIX was originally founded in 1994 as part of The Boston Computer Society. We meet on the third Wednesday of each month at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Building E51.

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] Discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 18



hi

Have a look at this site...

http://themeforest.net/collections/3516382-100-gpl-wordpress-themes

100% GPL but at a cost :-(

Now is there  a difference between "100% GPL" and "GPLv3"
I have on occasion tried to locate the source code of those themes but
with no success


Mayuresh


On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:00 PM, <discuss-request at blu.org> wrote:

> Send Discuss mailing list submissions to
>         discuss at blu.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         discuss-request at blu.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         discuss-owner at blu.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Profiting from GPL software (Greg Rundlett (freephile))
>    2. Re: Profiting from GPL software (Rich Pieri)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:59:19 -0500
> From: "Greg Rundlett (freephile)" <greg at freephile.com>
> To: Rich Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com>
> Cc: blu <discuss at blu.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Profiting from GPL software
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CANaytcfDxARERcZKHv-h4kUPNqUas-1Y1BHmauX2px4GD+tDgA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Rich Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 11/11/2015 9:37 AM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote:
> >
> >> I have no idea what "onerous and burdensome requirements" are placed on
> >> contributors to GPL software.  I've contributed to GPL software and the
> >> price I paid was learning how to do so; with the tools to do so... a
> price
> >> made attainable _by_ the very nature and existence of the GPL software
> I'm
> >> writing. The complete ecosystem of GPL software used to create and
> publish
> >> my work is the opposite of onerous and burdensome.  It's empowering and
> >> liberating.
> >>
> >
> > I'll enumerate some:
> >
> > You are forced to use the GPL for your changes even if you might not want
> > to use this license.
>
>
> So you object to contributing to software when you have to agree to the
> pre-existing license of said software?
>
>
> > You are required to provide the source code
>
>
> Contributor is not the same as Distributor
>
>
> > GPLv3 strips you of the legal right to protect your copyrights via
> > technical mechanisms.
>
>
> GPLv3 was created in order to combat Digital Restrictions.  Again,
> contributors to GPL'd software do so to retain, and protect their liberty,
> not to lock it down and restrict it technically.
>
>
> > You cannot distribute under non-disclosure.
>
>
> AFAIK, private 'sharing' (non-disclosure) is not distribution, but we were
> discussing the role of contributors rather than distributors.
> Non-disclosure wouldn't even BE contributing.
>
>
> > Any patents you may have regarding the GPL'd work are automatically
> > licensed to those who receive the GPL'd work.
> >
>
> This is a liberating and freedom defending aspect of the GPL.  It makes
> software about solutions rather than lawyers.  It makes contributions into
> gifts rather than sneaky backdoor extortion schemes.
>
>
> >
> > I too have contributed to GPL software. The price I paid was assigning my
> > copyright to the FSF and being stabbed in the back by Stallman's cronies.
> > That experience was neither empowering nor liberating.
>
>
> I've met Richard Stallman on many occasions and have yet to be stabbed,
> even in Cambridge, MA where many of these alleged cronies must lie in wait
> to stab contributors.  I felt perfectly safe every occasion.
>
>
> >
> > I help them use free software and I sell my time and expertise.
> >>
> >
> > Then you're not selling software. You're selling your time and expertise.
> > In common parlance: technical support.
>
>
> The world has changed.  The big isle of boxed software at Staples is gone.
> Consumers buy software as services.  Enterprises buy contracts.  I think
> your definition of 'software sales' is anachronistic.  It certainly is when
> GPL software is the norm, and that's a good thing.  Microsoft software is
> about the ONLY software for sale at WalMart.com (other than some games).
> They are a dinosaur. I find it hard to believe that anyone, in their right
> mind, would pay $532.92 for a copy of Microsoft Windows Server Essentials
> *2012* R2 64 Bit.  On the other hand, I find it entirely reasonable that an
> organization would pay $320 for Ubuntu Advantage Essential
> http://www.ubuntu.com/server/management.  But as a contributor, I don't
> sell or distribute Ubuntu at all.  I install it, use it, configure it,
> share it, copy it, teach it and support it.  For free if I want to.  Or for
> a fee.
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rich P.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at blu.org
> > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:28:12 -0500
> From: Rich Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com>
> To: blu <discuss at blu.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Profiting from GPL software
> Message-ID: <56436C9C.1000409 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> On 11/11/2015 10:59 AM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote:
> > So you object to contributing to software when you have to agree to the
> > pre-existing license of said software?
>
> Yes. Contributing to GPL projects is not contributing to the common
> good. It's only contributing to GPL projects. The common good includes
> *BSD which cannot use code licensed under the GPL.
>
> > Contributor is not the same as Distributor
>
> A contributor distributes his changes to others even if the others are
> themselves distributors.
>
> > GPLv3 was created in order to combat Digital Restrictions.  Again,
> > contributors to GPL'd software do so to retain, and protect their
> liberty,
> > not to lock it down and restrict it technically.
>
> At the expense of my freedom to protect my rights.
>
> > AFAIK, private 'sharing' (non-disclosure) is not distribution, but we
> were
> > discussing the role of contributors rather than distributors.
> > Non-disclosure wouldn't even BE contributing.
>
> See previous about contributor == distributor.
>
> > This is a liberating and freedom defending aspect of the GPL.  It makes
> > software about solutions rather than lawyers.  It makes contributions
> into
> > gifts rather than sneaky backdoor extortion schemes.
>
> It's denying me some of my legal rights to my patents (if I had any).
>
> You asked what is onerous and burdensome about the GPL. Theses are some
> examples. Perhaps you don't find them onerous and burdensome. I do.
>
>
> > I've met Richard Stallman on many occasions and have yet to be stabbed,
> > even in Cambridge, MA where many of these alleged cronies must lie in
> wait
> > to stab contributors.  I felt perfectly safe every occasion.
>
> Someone fails to understand the concept of metaphor.
>
> --
> Rich P.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 18
> ***************************************
>



BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org