[Gllug] GPL & Licence Fees

[Peter Childs]

On 13/11/2007, salsaman at xs4all.nl <salsaman at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> On Mon, November 12, 2007 22:13, John Winters wrote:
> >> John Winters wrote:
> >>> Say I've taken an existing GPLed package and modified it slightly to
> >>> give
> >>> it an extra feature which you need.  I haven't distributed the package
> >>> yet
> >>> so I am under no obligation to let you have either the binary or the
> >>> source.  You ask me to sell you a copy and I say it'll cost you £1000.
> >>> You counter that you haven't got £1000 so I offer it to you for five
> >>> annual payments of £200.
> >>
> >> It depends in what way you sell it to them, no?  If you send them a
> copy
> >> of the software, you are distributing it, are you not?  Therefore under
> >> the terms of the GPL, you must make the source available on request,
> no?
> >
> > Yes, but that's not the point in question.  I was describing a scenario
> in
> > which someone could end up paying yearly instalments for piece of GPL
> > software.
> >
> > If you want to worry about when the source distribution happens then
> > assume I include it with the binaries, thus avoiding all problems.
> >
> >> In this circumstance, I would assume the terms of the first licence the
> >> software was put under, the GPL and not yours, would apply.
> >
> > There is only one licence in the scenario - the GPL.  Because the
> original
> > package was licensed to me under the GPL I can only pass on my modified
> > version (if I choose to pass it on at all) under the same licence.  I am
> > however free to ask whatever fee I like for giving you a copy (and you
> are
> > free to choose not to pay it, but then I won't give you a copy of my
> > modified package).
> >
> > Once you've received your copy you can pass it on as you will, but you
> > still need to pay me the money which we agreed.
> >
> > John
> >
> > --
> > Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
> > http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes, that`s alright. Under the GPL, you can charge what you like for
> distributing binaries. What you may not do is to charge for distributing
> the source to those you have distributed the binary to (except for
> reasonable costs for the media and postage if applicable). RMS himself has
> stated that he has no objections to this.
>
>
> Gabriel.
>
>
Right so whats the "commercial" licence that you can buy on top of things
like Qt exactly for then if its already free.....

I know that some of them offer value added features, but the basic
commercial version of Qt actually has features missing that are available
under the GPL version.....

I guess the answer is going to be its a licence to write code that uses Qt
that does not have the be GPL its self, but then I can write what ever I
like with it anyway so long as a also GPL it but I can charge what I like
for it.....

Hense by buying a commercial licence for Qt you are buying the right to
break the GPL which in theory you could be taken to court for so the Qt
commercial licence is not a licence at all but an emunity from prosecution.

Please do not try and explain licence law, and patient law its a doomed
practice anyway...

Peter Childs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20071113/3f96bbf4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug