Re: [tlug] linux in Japanese schools

["Marty Pauley" <marty.pauley@example.com>]

On 06/01/07, Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com> wrote:
> So with something like BSD-licensed software, when you get hold of it,
> you can do what you like with it. You can change it, keep your changes
> to yourself, and sell compiled versions for money, if that's what you
> want to do.

You can do all those things with GPL'd software too.

> With GPL'd software, the situation seems to me exactly the opposite.
> You have many more restrictions on what you can do with this software;
> for example, you cannot change the source, keep your changes secret,
> and sell your new version, as you can with the BSD license.

You said "many" restrictions.  Your example is the *only* restriction.
The GPL restriction is simple: *if* you distribute, you must also
grant the same rights that you were given.  If you don't distribute,
you can do whatever you want.

> anybody who gets any version of a GPL'd program, under the license, is
> entitled to the source code at no charge. The main effect of this seems
> to be that it is highly unlikely you will ever have to pay money for a
> piece of GPL'd software if you don't want to,

Well, you don't have to pay for any software if you don't want to.
Nobody is forcing you to buy anything :)

The "no charge" is not the main effect, just a side effect.  The main
effect is that the software can be improved or adapted without
bothering the original author.

The "no charge" side effect occurs because of the capitalist market
economy that drives the price down when there is more than one
supplier.  If there is only one supplier, or a small number who are
happy to price-fix, they can set whatever price they want.

For example, I could take a GPL program and modify it to work for
companies in the textile printing industry, and then sell it,
expensively, to some companies in that industry.  It is very unlikely
that any of those companies would ever ask for the source code.  It is
much more likely that other companies in the same industry would call
me and buy copies for themselves.

Any of my customers (but *only* my customers) has the right to
redistribute the program, or ask for the source.  But they probably
won't: they print stuff on textiles, not hack programs.

> even if it's a version with substantial modifications that the developer would
> rather keep proprietary.

That is the choice the developer has to make.  It's "share and
share-alike".  If he wants to distribute non-GPL software he can't
make it from GPL software.

--
Marty