[Discuss] Profiting from GPL software

[greg at freephile.com (Greg Rundlett (freephile))]

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
>