Ask Slashdot: Where Do You Draw the Line On GPL V2 Derived Works and Fees? 371
First time accepted submitter Shifuimam writes "I downloaded a DOSBox port for Android recently to get back into all the games of my childhood. Turns out that the only free distribution available hasn't been updated in nearly two years, so I looked for alternatives. There are two on Google Play — DOSBox Turbo and "DOSBot". Both charge a fee — DOSBox Turbo is $3.99; DOSBot is $0.99. The developer of DOSBot says on his Google Play entry that he will not release the source code of his application because it's not GPL, even though it's derived from source released under GPL v2 — this is definitely a violation of the license. The developer of DOSBox Turbo is refusing to release the source for his application unless you pay the $3.99 to "buy" a license of it. The same developer explicitly states that the "small" fee (although one might argue that $3.99 is pretty expensive for an OSS Android app) is to cover the cost of development. Unless I'm misreading the text of GPL v2, a fee can only be charged to cover the cost of the distribution of a program or derived work, not the cost of development. And, of course, it doesn't cost the developer anything for someone to log in to Google Play and download their app. In fact, from what I can tell, there's a one-time $25 fee to register for Google Checkout, after which releasing apps is free. Where do you draw the line on this? What do you do in this kind of situation?"
Pay the $3.99 (Score:2, Insightful)
Then post it on the internet yourself.
Re:Pay the $3.99 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and 3(b) is the only section in that part of the license. They labeled 3(b) because they thought it looked cool. That's definitely not taken out of context.
Re:Pay the $3.99 (Score:5, Informative)
FUD much?
You took clause 3(b) completely out of context. Here is the full context from GPL-v2 [gnu.org]:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
What emurphy42 said was correct. Clause 3(b) is an option, not an absolute requirement like you made it seem. The suggestion by emurphy42 is an equally viable option.
Re: (Score:3)
3(a) is still possible, even for a binary distributed on google's play store.
Providing a link to the modified sources with the binary suffices - a web URL *is* a "medium customarily used for software interchange".
The recipient is, of course, entitled to redistribute both source and binary under the terms of
Re: (Score:2)
A link is not the source code; it is more like an offer to provide source code later. One must do something more than provide a URL to satisfy section 3(a) of the GPLv2. For example, Debian handles it by having source packages on the same servers as the corresponding binary packages -- this satisfies Debian that the source and binary packages are on the same "medium customarily used for software interchange", and that the user has a sufficient chance to download the source code for any binary they get. F
Re: (Score:3)
Correct.
Wrong.
3(a) only requires that you give the source to anyone you distribute the binary to. The *ONLY* thing that the GPL says about *HOW* you are to give the source is that it is "...on a medium customarily used for software interchange".
It does not say that it must be on the same medium as the binary - e.g. it's perfectly legit to have a "Binary CD" and a "Source CD", ditto for a binary URL and a source URL (even if they're on differen
Re: (Score:2)
How does the PlayStore have anything with that? They could easily embed the source in the apk and distribute it with the binary.
Re:Pay the $3.99 (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you don't give someone the binary"
I believe the intent of the parent poster was using give as in "provide" not "give" as in make a gift of.
You are absolutely allowed to sell the binary for any price the market will bear, and then for compliance with the GPL you must either have a written offer as you describe or include the source code with the binary distribution. It isn't clear from the facts whether the distributor of DosBox Turbo is in compliance or not, it would depend entirely on whether there is a written offer for how to get source at a minimal expense included in the help text of the app or in the app description. Without that, then it seems to me to be in violation, but it doesn't hinge on the cost of the binary.
One critical fact is that anybody who does get the source has full GPL rights to it, and can redistribute it should they choose. This ability to compete is what limits the pricing, not the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you rip apart the .apk and find the source included, that is a valid alternative too.
Re: (Score:3)
True. But the way that is worded, you still need to find someone else who had already bought the binary and received the source code offer, since it only says the offer must accompany the binary.
So I think the DOSBox Turbo guy is technically still within the letter of the GPL. DOSBot definitely sounds like a GPL violation though.
Re: (Score:2)
More stupid anti-GPL FUD. It doesn't even make sense that you would have to be responsible for the acts of others. I posted the actual clause from the GPL-v2 [gnu.org] in a recent post above this one.
Re:Pay the $3.99 (Score:5, Informative)
The AC had it right -- one must choose one of 3(a), 3(b) or 3(c) when one distributes a binary form of the work. It seems clear that the "DOSBox Turbo" distributor is not using 3(a) and is not eligible to use 3(c). If he wishes to comply with GPLv2, then, he must choose 3(b), and his written offer to provide source code must be valid for any third party. $3.99 is clearly not the distributor's cost to perform source distribution.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He only has up give the source to anyone HE DISTRIBUTES BINARIES to. Not anyone in the world. In effect, technically, he only has to give the source to Google. They are responsible for further distribution.
Also, I would love to see you argue in court that it costs less than $4 to distribute it anyway. You'll have a really hard time considering lawyers themselves charge hundreds of dollars for simply answering an email with copies of documents THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DISTRIBUTE.
You don't get to determine th
Re:Pay the $3.99 (Score:5, Informative)
No. If the binary doesn't come with the source, he does have to give the source to anyone in the world who got a binary, even if it wasn't him who gave them the copy. From the GPLv2 FAQ:
What does this âoewritten offer valid for any third partyâ mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
3(b) says the binary-form distributor must include "a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code". The "any third party" directly rebuts your claim about only having to give source code to the people he gave binaries to. The qualifier "physically" is apparently to preclude charges for the associated labor and to prevent overcharges
Re: (Score:2)
It seems clear that the "DOSBox Turbo" distributor is not using 3(a)
How so? Unless someone who bought the binary comments on this topic, we don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Entrope claims:
It seems clear that the "DOSBox Turbo" distributor is not using 3(a)
Yet the fine summary said:
The developer of DOSBox Turbo is refusing to release the source for his application unless you pay the $3.99 to "buy" a license of it.
which **is** option 3(a) since the $3.99 refers to buying the app. As I quoted before from the GPL-v2:
a) Accompany it [the app] with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, [...]
Re: (Score:2)
Your position is that the DOSBox Turbo app installs its source code along with the binaries? If so, where? If not, how does the source code accompany the binary form?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm saying that DOSBox Turbo is in compliance with the spirit of the GPL and as far as we know is also in compliance with the letter.
Please feel free to spend the $3.99 to find out if they are actually in compliance with the letter or not. If not, do you really doubt they would be willing to rectify this rather small detail?
The main point is that the DOSBox Turbo response does not appear to be in conflict with the GPL. The submitter, Shifuimam, has no cause for complaint against DOSBox Turbo.
Re: (Score:2)
The DOSBox Turbo web page says that it is licensed under the GPL, and also has a FAQ explaining why it is "not free". That does not seem like compliance with the spirit of the GPL. If you think he does complying with either the spirit or the letter of the GPL, why don't you pay $3.99 to confirm your guess?
I don't want to spend $3.99 because it seems too likely -- based on what others have done in similar situations in the past -- that he would not provide complete corresponding source code for his version
Re:Pay the $3.99 (Score:4, Informative)
The DOSBox Turbo web page says that it is licensed under the GPL, and also has a FAQ explaining why it is "not free". That does not seem like compliance with the spirit of the GPL.
The GPL is not about "free as in beer" which is what you are complaining about now. The GPL is about "free as in freedom".
It seems that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. People erroneously complain that you have to give your software away for free if you use the GPL. Now you are complaining that not giving your software away for free is somehow not in the spirit of the GPL.
It seems like you are just looking for an excuse to complain. If you don't like the GPL, that's fine. Don't use it. Please stop spreading and defending anti-GPL FUD.
Re: (Score:3)
The DOSBox Turbo web page says that it is licensed under the GPL, and also has a FAQ explaining why it is "not free".
In that context 'free' is clearly in reference to the monetary cost.
That does not seem like compliance with the spirit of the GPL.
Actually it most certainly is DoesTheGPLAllowMoney [gnu.org].
If you think he does complying with either the spirit or the letter of the GPL, why don't you pay $3.99 to confirm your guess?
Because it certainly appears to be, there's no evidence to suggest it isn't so if you're going to suggest that it isn't then come up with some proof.
I don't want to spend $3.99 because it seems too likely -- based on what others have done in similar situations in the past -- that he would not provide complete corresponding source code for his version and/or he would claim that some of his extensions are under GPL-incompatible licenses (such as "all rights reserved")
That doesn't seem likely at all, in fact if he were complying with the GPL to the letter this is exactly [gnu.org] how it could be done, so your comments are baseless conjecture, nothing more.
Re:Pay the $3.99 (Score:5, Informative)
Stop with the apologetics for GPL violations!
What violation? There is no evidence of any GPL violation here. Falsely charging someone with violating the GPL when they are not is a common anti-GPL FUD tactic. You have even gone so far as to claim they violate the spirit of the GPL because they choose to charge for their software and don't also have a spiel about "free as in freedom".
When I said DOSBox Turbo was following the spirit of the GPL it was in regard to their offer to send the source code after you buy the app. Instead of conceding this point, you switched topics to the fact that they charge money for the app, saying that violated the spirit of the GPL. When I countered your new argument you switched back to your original unfounded claims that they are violating the GPL even after you tacitly admitted there is no evidence of a violation besides conjecture on your part.
There are plenty of people who are clearly violating both the letter and the spirit of the GPL. If you are truly a friend of the GPL and Free Software then go after them instead of defending AC FUD here.
Re:Pay the $3.99 (Score:5, Informative)
So, I did pay the $3.99 for DOSBox Turbo, installed it on my phone, and moved it to the SD card. When mounting that as a disk drive, the only thing I can see related to "dosbox" is .../.android_secure/com.fishstix.dosbox-1.asec, an 8.5 MB binary file that is apparently encrypted. When I run the application itself, it does not include anything that looks like a link or other offer to the corresponding source code. My conclusion: This is a clear and blatant violation of both the letter and the spirit of the GPL. Now will you admit that you're wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Okay, I spent the $3.99. As far as I can tell, the binary install does not include source code; the only related file I can find is an 8.5 MB binary blob, apparently encrypted (it's in an ".android_secure" directory and "strings" doesn't show any apparent English text). When the application runs, it does not appear to provide any link to the corresponding source code, or any contact information to request the source code. The only way I found to contact the distributor is to go through Google Play. So:
Re: (Score:3)
I sent a support request to the distributor asking where the source code is. Depending on the response to that, I might complain to Google and/or the DosBox developers. I would rather have the distributor mend his ways with as little third-party pressure as possible; I think that usually leads to a better FOSS environment in the long term.
Re:Pay the $3.99 (Score:5, Informative)
So, I did pay the $3.99 for DOSBox Turbo, installed it on my phone, and moved it to the SD card. When mounting that as a disk drive, the only thing I can see related to "dosbox" is .../.android_secure/com.fishstix.dosbox-1.asec, an 8.5 MB binary file that is apparently encrypted. When I run the application itself, it does not include anything that looks like a link or other offer to the corresponding source code. My conclusion: This is a clear and blatant violation of both the letter and the spirit of the GPL. Now will you admit that you're wrong?
If you purchased DosBox Turbo from the Google Play store, click on the link next to the app icon and send me a request for the source (if you haven't already done so). I'm currently away from my main desk; however, I will get your request processed within 24 hours.
Re: (Score:3)
He was already in violation; he did not include either the source code or a written offer to provide source code with his binary version. If the binary version was accompanied by the source code, that would have ended his obligations; if it was accompanied by a written offer to provide source code, that would allow anyone to ask for the source code.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, where the license is deficient is in not distinguishing if one need only comply with one avenue for obtaining source regardless of the number of ways it may be distributed or if a distribution option must apply for each distribution method.
If the former is the case, the author is completely within his rights. If the latter, then the distribution through a method where he does not comply with 3(a) and supply the source at the time of distribution opens him to the requirements of 3(b). However, he
Re: (Score:3)
The GPLv2 is not deficient in the manner you claim, at least in this case. This is a commercial distribution in a binary form, which means section 3(c) cannot apply. If installing the binary form also installs the complete corresponding source code, then the distributor satisfies section 3(a). If it does not, he must comply with section 3(b), which allows any third party to request the (complete corresponding) source code. The implication from the article summary is that 3(b) does apply, and that $3.99
Re:Pay the $3.99 (Score:5, Informative)
The GPLv2 is not deficient in the manner you claim, at least in this case. This is a commercial distribution in a binary form, which means section 3(c) cannot apply. If installing the binary form also installs the complete corresponding source code, then the distributor satisfies section 3(a). If it does not, he must comply with section 3(b), which allows any third party to request the (complete corresponding) source code. The implication from the article summary is that 3(b) does apply, and that $3.99 is more than the "cost of physically performing source distribution" -- a blank CD plus US postage for same is certainly less than that.
I, for one, am not willing to pay $3.99 for an experiment where the outcome seems so likely to be unrewarding. I would guess that the source code would be incomplete and/or would not correspond to the version that one can get through Google Play, and that the distributor would also claim a GPLv2-incompatible license for some of the Android-specific bits. Because I do not hold a copyright that would be infringed in such a case, it is not worth my time or money to confirm my guess. Even if that guess were wrong, I would not get $3.99 worth of value from either the source or binary form of the app.
The source I've distributed to my end users includes all the necessary Android-specific bits to compile a working executable just like the one in the Google play store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GPLv2 says that it must be in a machine-readable form on a medium customarily used for software interchange, and that the cost charged for a copy of the source code must not exceed the "cost of physically performing source distribution". This prohibits additional considerations such as the diamond-encrusted USB key or employing a large number of Vatican virgins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pay the $3.99 (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong.
Pay the 3.99
request the source
make a small improvement.
post a version for 1.35 on play
Sell the app 3 times.
Profit!!!!
put a ad supported version of in the store. More profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you only need to
Pay the 3.99
post it for 1.35 on play
Sell the app 3 times.
Profit!!!!
There is no need to do a small modification or to obtain the source for this.
they're not giving the source. (Score:3)
that's the whole point of the article, me thinks.
what to do? dunno. warez their application. lobby dosbox to do an official version.
sue them. have fsf sue them - this is actually what you should do, buy it, request the source and when denied sue them.
The GPL allows them to charge the $4, as I read it (Score:4, Insightful)
I also thought that whenever a binary is made available, the source code had to be made available. I thought it was this source code distribution which must be performed for the media cost (GPL v2 coming from a day when tapes were occassionally still considered a possible choice of distribution medium).
What this would mean, to me, is that DOSBox Turbo should be making the source code freely available. Then the market will decide if $3.99 is too much to bear for the product they provide -- some service in compiling the binary, and a brand.
Re:The GPL allows them to charge the $4, as I read (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought you could charge any amount you want for distribution...
Yes and no.
1. If you sell a binary that contains GPLv2 code, you must also make available the source code , and for distributing that source code, you can only charge a reasonable fee to cover costs.
But...
2. The binary you may charge whatever you want - 1 cent or $1000 or whatever.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you are wrong in the case of DOSBox Turbo. Section 3 says he must do one of three things: distribute the source ALWAYS with any copy (which he is not doing), distribute the source on demand to ANYBODY requesting it for the price of materials, or provide your modifications along with any offer of code from section 2.
Sorry, that sounds pretty clear. He didn't say "send me $4 by post and I'll mail you a floppy." He's demanding he purchase it through Google Play, which means the first clause of sec
Re:The GPL allows them to charge the $4, as I read (Score:5, Interesting)
distribute the source on demand to ANYBODY requesting it for the price of materials
Not anybody -- any third party. That's a specific legal term and the specific meaning of the third party is not defined. The GPL v3 clarified it as to mean that the first party (distributor) only has to provide source code to a third party if the third party received a GPL-licensed work from the first party. If it came down to it, a judge and jury would probably use the GPL v3 rules for an ambiguous v2 license dispute.
Re:The GPL allows them to charge the $4, as I read (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think so. "Third party" is, as you say, a specific legal term, but it is well-defined in law. The GPL doesn't provide any other definition, so the standard definition would be used in interpreting that language in the GPL.
And no, the GPL v3 doesn't allow distributing only to people who got the software directly from the distributor. Section 6 paragraph B (which applies here) says you have to provide the code to anyone who possesses the binaries. If Harry gets the program from you, and then Harry passes a copy along to me, I have a right to get the source code from you (Harry received the software under 6b, I received it under 6c, I possess the binaries thus can invoke 6b against you).
One thing's remained constant for a long time: the only option that permits you to give source code only to people who received the software directly from you is 3A (GPLv2) or 6A (GPLv3): distributing the source code along with the binaries.
Re:The GPL allows them to charge the $4, as I read (Score:5, Informative)
-- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid [gnu.org]
Which makes sense, since the first two parties are the two involved in the license, "any third party" is anyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
But the reason it's called a third party is that it had no direct transaction w/ the first party. What 3b & c seem to describe is that the first party sold/gave the binaries to the second party, and a written offer to the source, which the second party may or may not have availed. So now, if the second party wants to sell/give this to the third party, it would normally be violating the GPL, since it doesn't give the sources, which it may not have. Hence, the GPL tries to put the responsibility on the
No Enforcement, No Restriction (Score:5, Interesting)
A restriction is only as binding as its enforcement mechanism. If the developers behind DOSBox aren't going to hold other developers accountable who are trading on their name, and nobody else is willing to take them to court over it (and obviously nobody will over $3.99), then the restrictions are meaningless.
Another incident which comes to mind is that of DD-WRT - there are several articles on this, but I'll just link to the first on Google's listings [wi-fiplanet.com] - where they derived their product from open source code (OpenWRT), then closed source key parts and refuse to release the code in workable form.
It seems to me that this is the fundamental problem with GPL, and some other, open source licenses; it all depends on the honor system. Sure, they are technically legally binding, but if nobody holds anybody's feet to the fire, that means nothing.
As it pertains to you if you really care that much about it, I suppose you have three choices: (1) Swallow it, and pay the price they are demanding; (2) Go without, and refuse to give developers like this your money; (3) Buy a license of the source code, and then release it publicly out of principle. Since this stemmed from wanting to play games from your childhood, the pragmatist in me says to choose option two and move on.
Re:No Enforcement, No Restriction (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that this is the fundamental problem with GPL, and some other, open source licenses
No, it's a fundamental problem with the current legal system. Nothing more, nothing less. The GPL, as any contract, is only enforceable by the legal system in place, which has this bias.
Re: (Score:3)
A restriction is only as binding as its enforcement mechanism. If the developers behind DOSBox aren't going to hold other developers accountable who are trading on their name, and nobody else is willing to take them to court over it (and obviously nobody will over $3.99), then the restrictions are meaningless.
Pretty much this. We can yell and scream and call them horrible people all we want. In the end of the day, no one gives a shit. The only ones with grounds to do anything about this are the DosBox devs, and they've either decided they don't care, or that the situation is ambiguous enough to let it slide. They wouldn't even need to take this joker to court: just start by reporting the infringement to google.
Re:No Enforcement, No Restriction (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that this is the fundamental problem with GPL, and some other, open source licenses; it all depends on the honor system. Sure, they are technically legally binding, but if nobody holds anybody's feet to the fire, that means nothing.
Your problem is that you don't understand how these licenses work. The copyright holder gave people permission to make copies, as long as they followed certain rules. This doesn't mean anyone, even the copyright holder, can force anyone to follow these rules. It means that anyone making copies without following the rules, or without having any other permission, commits copyright infringement, and the copyright holder can sue them for copyright infringement.
If you are not the copyright holder, you have no standing to sue.
They can charge what they like (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL doesn't prohibit you from charging for your software. It does require you to give the source to anyone who gets the binary and charge only the cost of distribution, but failing to do so is a license violation against the copyright holder, not against the user who wants the source.
So you need to convince a copyright holder of the original GPL2 version to go after the individual who isn't releasing source.
And you need to pay the $3.99 before you can get the source from the other guy.
Re: (Score:2)
And you need to pay the $3.99 before you can get the source from the other guy.
And then publish it, compile your own version and upload it to Play for free.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:They can charge what they like (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you certain you have read the GPL?
Your statement that it requires one to give the source to anyone who gets the binary is INCORRECT.
WRONG: Firstly, they may distribute the source code alongside with the binary (see 3(a)), and if they choose 3(b), the offer has to be valid for any third party, but they only have to give it to the person who receives the binary. This person could then decide to post the offer on the Internet.
And you explicitly do NOT need to pay the scumbag's $3.99 binary fee before you can get his source.
Also wrong, they can charge all they want for the binary, because only when you receive the binary you are legally entitled to also get the source code. In other words, at least one person must pay the guys, and this person can then redistribute the binary and the source code gratis.
Re: (Score:2)
That's wrong. You're taking a half a sentence and quoting it out of context. Clause 3(b) doesn't require you to do anything - it gives you the option of doing that. Clause 3(a) permits you instead to provide the source code only to those to whom you sell (or give) the compiled binaries. 3(c) is yet another option, but it's availably strictly for non-commercial distribution so it doesn't apply here.
He is well within his rights to ask you to buy his product before he gives you the source code.
money plus source (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true than MySQL would of never been able to make money...
Re: (Score:2)
MySQL, like every profitable product with OSS in it makes its money from proprietary extensions.
No one actually makes money directly from OSS.
Do? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you are a DOSBox developer and have code in the source tree, try sending a DMCA takedown notice to Google.
If you aren't, it sounds like you've done the first step, which is report it to the community at large. You might contact DOSBox's developer community and see if they even care.
I did. (Score:3)
how much updating does it really need (Score:2)
its dos, it hasnt been made for over a decade, does your app work? if yes then be happy, if no then start looking, its not like it has to keep up with the bleeding edge of MS DOS development here
GPL != Free (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL doesn't mandate that the software/source code be released for free, it mandates that the source code MUST accompany the binary if (and only if) the binary is distributed.
For example, I work for Random Fortune 500 Co. and take a copy of DOSBox, heavily modify it and deploy it to all the workstations in my organization. At no point am I publicly distributing a binary, thus nobody has the right to demand I release my source code.
Example 2: I decide to take the DOSBox source code and make an Android port. I put this port in the app store and sell it for $5. Unless you purchase the application, again you have no right to request the source code. If 100 people purchase my application, they have the right to request the modified source code. If you buy it, you can request the source code.
Once you get the source code, you can do whatever you want with it, within the bounds of the GPL. You can give it away for free, package it up and resell it (modified or unmodified), or never give it away to anyone!
Re:GPL != Free (Score:5, Informative)
Yes and no. Source code only has to be made available if the binaries are distributed, that much is correct. But the GPL v2 does not mandate that the source code must accompany the binaries. For commercial distribution, what it mandates (down in section 3, paragraphis A and B [gnu.org]) is that either:
So yes, if you put up a port of DOSBox in the app store and don't include source code in the package, I can indeed come along and demand the source code from you without ever buying a copy of your app. If you refuse to provide it, you're in breach of your license to distribute the DOSBox code because you're failing to comply with section 3 regarding availability of the source code (no source in the binary package means paragraph A doesn't apply, your failure to make it available to any third party means paragraph B doesn't apply, and since you're distributing commercially through the app store paragraph C doesn't apply).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And here is why people don't develop GPL commercial apps.
YOU ARE ONLY ENTITLED TO THE SOURCE CODE IF YOU HAVE THE BINARY
How hard is it? The *distributor* of the binary is requires to distribute the source code as well. IF you get the binary from some HAX4FREE website, well, then you can aks them for the source code too, NOT the original developer.
THE DISTRIBUTOR IS REQUIRES TO DISTRIBUTE THE SOURCE CODE
So if you get the binary from an AppStore, you are entitled for the source code. IF you then get it from a
Re: (Score:3)
To quote from the GPL v2, section 3 paragraph B:
Note the bolded text. The offer is good for any third party, not any third party possessing the binaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GPL != Free (Score:4, Informative)
The GPL does not require that the source code accompany the binary, although that is the simplest way to comply with clause 3 of the GPL.
Clause 3 gives three options. Clause 3(a) allows one to distribute the source with the binary. Clause 3(b) allows one to offer to distribute the source to ANY third party. Clause 3(c) allows one to refer requests up the food chain. (Al puts the app out there. Bob grabs a copy, and gives it to Charlie. Charlie asks Bob for the source. Bob is allowed under clause 3(c) to tell Charlie "I got it from Al, he said you could get it from HERE".) Clause 3(c) is restricted to noncommercial distribution, and only works if all you got was a clause 3(b) offer. If you got the source with the binary (clause 3(a)), you are required to give it up on request.
Your Example #2 is SPECIFICALLY wrong. If you do not distribute your GPL source WITH your GPL binary in accordance with clause 3(a), you are required by clause 3(b) of the GPL to make your source code available to ANYONE who requests it.
Re: (Score:3)
Three things I'd like to throw in here. First, you'd think that after a few dickish maneuvers of making source hard to get, someone that got the source from him would post it up somewhere so anyone could have it (whether or not they bought the author's binary) I suppose the author may try to go
Re: (Score:2)
The company's probable legal reasoning would be that it merely provides the employee with access to a company-owned system that includes the software, which would mean that the company has not distributed the software within the meaning of the GPLv2. This kind of claim is only tenable where the company owns the system (or perhaps in some other cases where the individual in question is acting as an agent of the company, under the usual laws of agency); it would not hold if a copyright owner wanted to press
GPLv2 gives the reciever of software rights (Score:4, Insightful)
rule of thumb: if you get a piece of software, can you change it at the code level? can you pass on those changes to someone else without having to check with who you got it from? if either answer is "No" then there's a problem if you got a supposed GPLv2 piece of software.
One violates the GPL the other does not. (Score:4, Informative)
gross violation of the GPL, report it to the EFF and the FSF immediately, they can and just might sue.
"The developer of DOSBox Turbo is refusing to release the source for his application unless you pay the $3.99 to "buy" a license of it."
which is allowed under the GPL, specificly. Stallman himself said he has no problem with people charging money for software so long as the source code is included, and the consumer is given the right to look at, modify, recompile and redistribute software.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/. He's also made it very clear, Free software is "Free as in speech, not free as in beer".
So if you have the opinion that no one should ever charge for software, fine, but your views do not represent either the FSF, nor its illustrious founder, nor the bulk of the Free software community, and certainly not the Open Source community(which has found a solid business model to profit off Free software).
You could obviously pay the 3.99 and re-upload the app, or copy from someone else who has it.
And merge it upstream (Score:4, Insightful)
Even better than "pay the $3.99 and upload the app". Pay the $3.99, get the source. Then talk to upstream to merge the changes upstream. Then redistribute the app from upstream. You do not want to have to upkeep a separate code tree for android. Merging it to upstream might just give you free updates of the engine.
Re:And merge it upstream (Score:4, Interesting)
The author says he already did send his changes upstream, but upstream appears to be dead.
Re:One violates the GPL the other does not. (Score:4, Insightful)
gross violation of the GPL, report it to the EFF and the FSF immediately, they can and just might sue.
They can only sue if they are the copyright holder.
You misread the GPL. (Score:3)
Unless I'm misreading the text of GPL v2, a fee can only be charged to cover the cost of the distribution of a program or derived work, not the cost of development.
You are misreading the GPL [gnu.org]. There's nothing stopping the author selling the product for £1,000,000.
Of course he's obliged to give the source code away - but only to people he distributes the application to. He's not obliged to make the source code available to anyone who wants a copy, and he's not obliged to distribute it to people who haven't got a copy of the binary.
Thing is, he's not allowed to impose any onerous conditions on you. He could sell it for, say, £1,000,000; you could buy it and then sell it yourself for £100. If you can persuade more than ten thousand people to buy it, you'd make a profit overall. If you could persuade 10,001 people to pay £100 for every one person who pays £1,000,000 to the original author, you'd make more money than them!
This means that it's pretty rare for commercial software to be sold under the GPL; usually it's dual-licensed. But it's not unknown, and as more hobbyist developers start looking at selling packaged apps on platforms like Google Play, I think it may even become more common.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently a common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. If you read the GPL v2 section 3 on distribution in object-code form [gnu.org], you'll find you have 3 options:
If you're distributing the source along with the binarie
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, no, that's not quite right. You can't resell his binary without his permission. The way it works is:
1) He doesn't have to give the original source or his modified source to anyone by default, and he can charge whatever he wants for his binaries built from modified source.
2) He *does* have to make either the complete modified source or patches against otherwise-available baseline GPL source available to everyone who buys his binary. He can charge a very minimal fee for access to this source (e.g
Did you read the GPL? (Score:2)
Did you even read the GPL text?
I think you are referring to the to the section 3) of the GPL license [gnu.org]?
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
There it states that You may copy and distribute the Program ... if you follow the terms a), b) and c). That means if you are not copy and not distribute the Program you are in no obligation to offer anyone the source code (under the terms a), b) or c)).
I think a lot of people misunderstand the GPL. The GPL is a license that is protecting the user and grands the user rights (to study the code, to modify the
When 3.99 is too much (Score:2, Informative)
This exactly points out what is wrong with this world.
When you think that 3.99 is too much, please take a look at the number of downloads. See how that fits into your current salary.
If the math is working well for you and you live on fast noodles and in a cardboard box, then complain!
I'm not a software engineer, just someone who is shocked by consumer attitudes over and over again.
Its $4.00!!!! (Score:3)
If you want the app, pay the fee. If you are squabbling over the cost of a coffee at Starbucks, you have more financial issues than you think and if that is the case, you probably don't need that shiny Android device.
If it ticks you off so much, fork the most recent open source version you can find and try to build a community behind it.
I do understand this is all about GPL Violations, but if what brought you to investigating it was sticker price shock, I am just baffled by your cheapness.
Think before you post (Score:2, Insightful)
First, the question is of the interaction. The apps almost certainly consist of a launcher/helper written in Java/Android and a compiled binary. The normal analysis is that by calling a GPLed program your program does not yet become GPLed. The next detail is that the DOSBox source is probably modified, e.g. to interact with the hardware (e.g. Android is not X11), and to compile on ARM, ... => these modifications do need to be released.
I get on with my day. (Score:2, Informative)
Because I am an adult.
It was my understanding.... (Score:2)
OP here... (Score:2)
While I will absolutely agree that I misunderstood my initial reading of the GPL v2 text, I think there does seem to maybe be a gap in licensing options for FOSS developers. I do a little software development for fun (I am by no means a programmer; I know a little C# and used to actively develop a number of addons for a popular MMO using Lua), but that's it. Even then, I don't personally like the idea that someone
I am the author of DosBox Turbo (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for the very lively and interesting discussion. The OP e-mailed a few days ago asking for the source code for DosBox Turbo [google.com]. I informed him that I make available the source code to my users whom I've distributed a binary to and that the GPL specifically allows for this. I also make available the source code to the upsteam DosBox devs, and forwarded them copies not too long ago. Furthermore, I've contacted the aDosBox devs and offered to port many of my improvements into the free aDosBox software for everyone to benefit. I've never heard back from the aDosBox devs, and I am assuming it is a dead project, as there has been no activity in over a year and no response to my messages in over 4 months.
While I respect the OP's opinion that (actual price on Google play is $3.49) is too much to pay (don't forget Google takes 30% off the top), the reality is, a majority of my time is spent providing user support, fixing bugs in various Android devices that my users have, and implementing new features and suggestions from my user-base. I've amassed a collection of no less than 8 different Android devices, so that I can reproduce a wide range of reported bugs.
The OP and I may disagree on what my time is worth; however, we did have a constructive discussion about perhaps moving to a model of charging for the value add-ons (which I currently provide for free), although, I'm not sure how easy that would be within the Google Play framework. I also suggested to him that there were numerous avenues for him to obtain a copy of the binary free of charge if price was a factor (one only has to search the various Android warez sites) and that I had no problems with him going that route.
While the OP may disagree with me, I believe that being able to charge for GPL software (and comply with the GPL) allows for development of better software with features and bug fixes that would normally never occur. Believe me, it is very time-consuming to sit around for hours answering user e-mails, or spending hours to fix hard to reproduce bugs that occur only on a specific version of Android or a specific device. Few, if any people, would do that kind of tedious work for free.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I am the author of DosBox Turbo (Score:4, Informative)
As a point of fact, the GPL does not "specifically allow[]" you to make the source code available only to users who pay for a binary version. GPLv2 offers three choices when distributing a binary work covered by its terms: 3(a) accompany the binary version with the source code; 3(b) accompany the binary version with an offer to provide the source code to anyone, at no more than your cost to distribute the source; or 3(c) -- for non-commercial redistribution of binary forms -- with the same offer that one received according to 3(b).
Re: (Score:3)
If someone else gets the binary from you, does not accept your offer of the source code, then technically they cannot give the binary to anyone else! Why not? Because the same rules apply to them. If THEY give the binary to someone else, they are distributing, and THEY have to provide the source code.
No quite. If they are redistributing non-commercially, they can comply with section 3c merely by passing on the original written offer from the dev/distributor (Yahma).
However, if Yahma isn't including an offer of source to his customers for them to pass on (nor is he providing the source with the binaries), then he wasn't complying with the licence for the original DOSBox source he has modified. He therefore isn't entitled to use that code to base his derived work from. (Similarly Google Play, being a dist
Re:I am the author of DosBox Turbo (Score:5, Insightful)
That's only the case if you include the source code along with the binaries. Otherwise you must accompany the binaries with a written offer for the source code, of which anybody (including those who aren't your customers) is then free to take advantage.
Re:Work for Free (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the rights of the people who worked on it in the past, with the understanding that their "compensation" would be in the form of others donating their time to continue improvements?
From what I understand, the "heavy lifting" of getting a MSDOS emulator working has been done under these terms. DOSBot and DOSBox Turbo can replace the GPLed code that OTHER PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN AND DESERVE TO BE COMPENSATED FOR with code they've written themselves if they don't agree to those terms.
Re: (Score:3)
They shouldn't have picked software licensed under the GPL. Since they did they are bound by the terms of the license.
Re: (Score:3)
No one compelled him to take a GPL code and extend it. When he took upon himself to use GPL code, he has agreed to release the source code, when he distributes the binaries of his derived work. So I do believe in forcing others to give away their source code (when I have purchased their binary). And I do believe in forcing others to pay for my work (especially when I have paid for the binaries).
Re: (Score:2)
You always have a right to use GPL code whether or not you agree to its terms.
You have no right to *COPY*, above and beyond whatever sense of copying is necessary to simply utilize the software in the first place, GPL code without agreeing to its terms.
But in this sense, the GPL is basically no different than any other type of copyright notice which says something to the effect of no portion of the work may be copied without permission... the GPL only differs in that it explicitly describes what entail
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you install the "Trial Version" (assuming there is one), then you have the Binaries, therefore you should be able to request the source no?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You can request the source code of the trail binary, as well as any keys used to digitally encode or sign the binary.
Re:Yes you are (Score:5, Insightful)
This is correct, and for the DOSBox Turbo, the OP got it completely wrong
The person possessing the GPLed software can charge anything he likes for the binaries. It's only to the source code that there is a limit to whatever the distribution cost is. But DOSBox Turbo has every right to charge what it likes. The fact that the OP is bitching about $3.99 - less then the cost of a happy meal - shows exactly what's wrong w/ the 'free software' movement, and why companies are right to avoid them like the plague.
Also, the source code only has to accompany the binaries - it doesn't have to be given for free to just about anybody or everybody. Personally, I think that clause 3b is ridiculous - nobody should have to support a third party, who only got that software due to a license, and not anything else. But the way around it is for anybody selling GPL software to go w/ option 3a - once they are paid, provide both the binaries and source in the same download, and leave the responsibility of re-distributing the source to the customer. That way, any Billy Joe Blow turns up asking for the source code, he can be told to GFY, unless he happened to buy it from him.
That way, that'll be all there is to it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Clear GPL violations, even this relatively small ones, should not be tolerated.
Whereas copyright violations, even major ones, should be not only tolerated but encouraged?*
* I don't know if doragasu is a copyright violater or not. This is aimed at the copyright infringing masses on /.
Re: (Score:3)
No, developers must release the source code to ANYONE who requests it, regardless of whether they received the binary or not.
Read clause 3(b), the part where it says "any third party". The key word is "any".
No, because they have only to comply with one of the three clauses (a), (b), or (c), and even if they choose (b), they only have to provide the written offer to the receiver of the binary, notwithstanding that the actual offer must be valid for any third party (thereby making 3(c) possible).