[Discuss] Discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 18

[m.m.rajwadkar at ieee.org (Mayuresh Rajwadkar)]

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
> ***************************************
>