Slashdot Mirror

That looks like an outdated version of the comparisons that have been available for a long time at GNU.org. But no, taken out of context like that, they're not very informative at all. Simply saying "allowed" beside an attribute is pointless if you don't discuss the pros and cons of that attribute. Try gnu.org/philosophy, and compare with the license percentages from TFA for a better explanation. GNU licenses have about 60+ percent, whilst the nearest rivals have about 9%, for good reason.

"fabrication" is a nice word. Lie is better. The Free software foundation, the main proponent of the GPL, actively recommends many other licenses than the GPL and for them and most users there is little difference. It's when you see a lie like this in the headline that you know that someone has an anti FOSS agenda (admittedly, it's in the middle of the Yahoo article, but the person writing it knew which sentence would go at the top in Slashdot). I wonder if yahoo really isn't joining the dark side.

What I've found, however, is that in a commercial environment the GPL is a very important tool. It's the one of the few licenses which can be trusted to build a completely fair sharing system where many companies can come together and produce one set of code without the likelihood of the other companies cheating on them. It's definitely true that commercial entities make more software based on BSD/MIT licenses. However, the fact that you see more contributions to the base software on GPL systems is not an accident. It happens because the commercial entities can be happy that if their contribution is used against them, they will at least have the come back of being able to use changes.

I've seen (and posted about before) many examples where the use of a non copyleft license or a less effective copyleft license has lead to abandoned projects. The most classic being the failure of the ipsilon routing contributions to be pushed back into FreeBSD which died with the operating system. This happens because licenses such as Apache and BSD don't demand contributions, which means that when the lawyers are asked, they often recommend against contributing "for now" and the contributions actually never happen.

For this usage, the AGPLv3 is also a big advance and should IMHO probably be the license of choice for all projects which want to have efficient long term cooperation with commercial software producers going forward. Having said that, the most important thing is to work together with other people who have similar interestes. The F vs OSS debate is all very fine in theory, but in real life everybody has very much to cooperate over. That's seems to be the main reason why Free software foundation generally recommends that people contribute using the projects own license.

You can find less eccentric (and less easy targets) than RMS among those who support the GPL.

Yes -- RMS is quite the eccentric, and pretty much the antithesis of what you'd want to have in a spokesman.

Part of the problem is that he insists on taking "ownership" of the GPL, and frequently acts as though he's a spokesperson for the entire open source community. The GNU/Linux naming "war" that he's been waging for some time now is outright embarrassing for all parties involved.

He's also responsible for turning GNU from an open-source software collective into a pseudo political advocacy group. GNU's philosophy page reads like some sort of paranoid rant -- It's virtually impossible to take it seriously.

Perhaps the smoking gun is this mailing list post RMS made two years ago, admitting that he hasn't yet embraced hypertext. He browses the web through a HTTP-Mail gateway, and strips out the HTML. (On the flipside, GNU appears to have finally hired a competent web designer. Stephen Fry on the homepage is a rather nice touch)

Torvalds is a much better role model to follow. He keeps quiet, and insists that Linux is a community effort, of which he is only a small part.

Claim copyright? What sort of sensationalist dipshit are you? You make RMS look like a mellow, tolerant, effacing individual.

Point out to me, sunshine: Where exactly does the GPL claim copyright over code that wasn't written by the original author? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

That would be right here:

If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?

Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.

And from the following question:

A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on.

Claim copyright? What sort of sensationalist dipshit are you? You make RMS look like a mellow, tolerant, effacing individual.

Point out to me, sunshine: Where exactly does the GPL claim copyright over code that wasn't written by the original author? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

That would be right here:

If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?

Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.

And from the following question:

A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on.

It's amazing that after so many years people are *still* confusing commercial with proprietary. 99.9% of the use of Apache is commercial.. and it aint proprietary. However there are proprietary ripoffs of Apache and that is the problem that the GPL tries to defeat.

Some of us find it a bit improper/offensive when these people claim copyright over something that doesn't actually contain any of their work.

Claim copyright? What sort of sensationalist dipshit are you? You make RMS look like a mellow, tolerant, effacing individual.

Point out to me, sunshine: Where exactly does the GPL claim copyright over code that wasn't written by the original author? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

The GPL states that if you want to redistribute the code, you have to follow some guidelines. As the GP says, if you don't want to follow the guidelines of redistribution, go elsewhere. The idea is to promote an ecosystem of sharing. People who want to take and use the code and not share their own back for everybody else to benefit, are not welcome.

The criteria is 'derivative work', not 'link to'. Linking is sometimes a rule of thumb in this area, but it isn't decisive.

From the horse's mouth:

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License.

Although it's important to note that this appears at the very bottom, below the actual (and presumably legally-binding) terms and conditions. So while linking a proprietary application against a GPLv2 library may not technically violate the terms of the license, it does violate the spirit and certainly the intent. Libraries were specifically designed to be incorporated into other programs. When the author placed his library under the GPLv2, he expressly intended for all applications which used the code to be GPLv2 as well. Or else he would have used the LGPL instead.

And there is no section 2c, so I think onefriedrice is badly confusing things. Here is the whole LGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0-standalone.html and he's making references that just don't exist in it.

"I understand that if I build an application that links with a library that is licensed under GPLv2, I must also make my application GPL2"

You understand incorrectly, there are provisions for linking to GPL libraries that allow for excluding your code from the section 3 provisions of the GPL.

1. Exception to Section 3 of the GNU GPL. You may convey a covered work under sections 3 and 4 of this License without being bound by section 3 of the GNU GPL.
--

3. You may copy and distribute the Program .. provided that you also .. Accompany it with the complete .. source code

"I understand that if I build an application that links with a library that is licensed under GPLv2, I must also make my application GPL2"

You understand incorrectly, there are provisions for linking to GPL libraries that allow for excluding your code from the section 3 provisions of the GPL.

1. Exception to Section 3 of the GNU GPL. You may convey a covered work under sections 3 and 4 of this License without being bound by section 3 of the GNU GPL.
--

3. You may copy and distribute the Program .. provided that you also .. Accompany it with the complete .. source code

"You can't link GPL code with non GPL compatible code, library or not."

The person asking the question, as far a I can tell, did NOT ask about linking. He asked about writing one app, which would be GPL, which *would* link the library in question. Then, write another app, which is NOT GPL, which uses something like pipes, networking, or other forms of IPC (interprocess commmunications) to allow the proprietary application to 'communicate' with the GPL 'wrapper' of the application.

This would probably be legal, according to the Free Software Foundation: the GPL FAQ has a section on Plug-Ins which is probably the most responsive/similar to this question. Per the FAQ:

"It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program."

Yes, the GPL applies in that case because your code is a derivative work, regardless of what goes on in memory,

Umm, no. The FSF's own interpretation says if the GPLed code and non-GPLed code "make function calls to each other and share data structures" then the GPL applies, otherwise not.

So, "what goes on in memory" is in fact *crucial* to their definition of "derivative work".

Pardon, fumbled the link.

Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library

Damn, he's right... Lemme change the LICENSE file...

There... FreeBSD license good to go. Thanks for the reminder, RMS!

From FSF

For the free software movement, however, non-free software is a social problem, and moving to free software is the solution.

...the enemy is proprietary (non-free) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, ...

Sounds like zealot speak to me.

By their reasoning - my employer - that pays me to write/debug their software, keeping me gainfully employed and feeding and educating my children - is causing a social problem by doing so? It's his software...he paid for it - why should he be made to release it for free? (And don't say the zealots wouldn't if they could - re-read the rhetoric above if you're thinking otherwise)

They want to push their brand of freedom onto the software industry. But recognise it for what it is...

It's not freedom - it's communism.

You can't make a linked wrapper library since the GPL wrapper would be GPL too. See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLWrapper However it sounds like you are talking about a service based wrapper. Then I'd say it depends on how integrated your service wrapper is with your main program. If you use separate processes but lots of IPC and shared memory then I'd think you app is to tightly integrated making it a derived work. If you make a network based service then I'd say you are legally clear even if you'll probably piss off the library author. See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins You could also make your app GPL but put a lot of the functionality in non-free plugs, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs Of course you could also just release you app as GPL and not worry about it. What is stopping you from using the GPL?

You can't make a linked wrapper library since the GPL wrapper would be GPL too. See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLWrapper However it sounds like you are talking about a service based wrapper. Then I'd say it depends on how integrated your service wrapper is with your main program. If you use separate processes but lots of IPC and shared memory then I'd think you app is to tightly integrated making it a derived work. If you make a network based service then I'd say you are legally clear even if you'll probably piss off the library author. See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins You could also make your app GPL but put a lot of the functionality in non-free plugs, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs Of course you could also just release you app as GPL and not worry about it. What is stopping you from using the GPL?

You can't make a linked wrapper library since the GPL wrapper would be GPL too. See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLWrapper However it sounds like you are talking about a service based wrapper. Then I'd say it depends on how integrated your service wrapper is with your main program. If you use separate processes but lots of IPC and shared memory then I'd think you app is to tightly integrated making it a derived work. If you make a network based service then I'd say you are legally clear even if you'll probably piss off the library author. See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins You could also make your app GPL but put a lot of the functionality in non-free plugs, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs Of course you could also just release you app as GPL and not worry about it. What is stopping you from using the GPL?

Pardon, fumbled the link.

Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library

I think a reasonable test would be to ask: is my program still mostly useful even if the GPLd helper/plugin is removed (modulo the specific removed function)?. If so, then I think it could be argued that your program is NOT a derivative work and that the GPL helper is governed the same as, say, a GPLd user application bundled with a commercial Unix/OSX distro. Personally I don't think it should matter how exactly it communicates with your code - what makes launching a process any different from a function call here?

Conversely: artificially doing contortions with your software to move essential libraries out to a separate app is not only in bad faith, but it doesn't work around the license at all. And if you ever had to argue otherwise, anyone turning up your slashdot story would not probably work in your favor.

IMHO the GPL, even v3, needs some work to clarify this question and also to close the hole for the software-as-a-service industry to modify GPL code without reciprocating.

Chrome OS Designed To Start Microsoft Death Spiral

Hopefully that's not their primary goal. Remember, if your primary goal isn't to do something positive for the customer then it ain't gonna work.

Luckily I know that there's a bit more to Chrome OS than Microsoft death threats. It's a nice thought but ... you've got a long way to go. You also need to consider that everyone is using something right now and you need to convince die hard Linux fans to leave their loyal distro of choice and follow you onward. That's just as important to success as targeting Windows, I would wager. Me, personally, would be impressed if you can get better hardware support and either work around Flash or pinch Adobe into supporting Flash on Linux. Those would be huge and I think would be highly decisive.

Also, I'm glad they didn't break this news six years ago when they started thinking about it ... nobody wants another Duke Nukem or Hurd where we're perpetually waiting and cracking jokes about it.

They've made it that unless you #define a load of stuff to switch the crap off or start using proprietary Windows extensions none of your code will compile without warnings.

They deprecated huge chunks of both the C and C++ standards without asking any of the standards committees.

I assume that you refer to the so-called "secure CRT" functions here, such as strcat_s. If so, there are two points to be made.

First of all, those aren't proprietary extensions. It's an implementation of an ISO C++ TR 24731 (as most ISO standards, an electronic version of the final standard isn't available freely, but you can look at the final draft). Yes, the implementation in VC2005 preceded the final release of that TR, and rather went hand in hand with development of the spec; but virtually all C++ compilers did that for ISO C++ itself as well, before it was finalized in 1998.

Regarding "deprecating", it's mostly a poor choice of words. The compiler would complain about "strcpy is deprecated", but it was never supposed to mean deprecation in ISO C++ standardeze meaning. Besides, it was a warning, not an error, and a conformant C++ implementation can produce all kinds of warnings so long as it compiles legal code - warnings are not regulated by the Standard in any way. In any case, you don't need to "#define a load of stuff" - as with any compiler, you can pass preprocessor definitions via compiler switches from command line (or makefile), and you only need a single define - _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS.

Oh, and they *still* haven't caught up with C99.

No-one has caught up with C99 yet. Even gcc still has quite a few features implemented only halfway, or even outright broken. Heck, VLAs - which is one major C99 feature - were still broken in gcc 4.3, and only properly supported in 4.4. If anything, this just points out how little people do care about most C99 stuff (which you know anyway if you actually follow the discussions on the matter).

At the same time, VC++ supports C++ TR1, which has some more useful bits of C99 (such as stdint.h header with standard typedefs for things such as int32_t).

I'm in a family of four. Please allow me to point out that the average family doesn't have 4 computers

I wouldn't get that impression from reading comments posted by other Slashdot users.

Chess has no single player option.

The sets I linked in my other post don't, but Chess for PC does, and because it's turn-based, multiplayer on one PC and one copy of the game is a given.

you wouldn't happen to want to complain about how Starcraft 2 isn't playable with 4 people on the same computer, would you?

That's part of why I don't play RTS anymore.

Care to read what RMS says [fsf.org] on the subject? He says he specifically put in the "anti-TiVo" clause because while you can get the source code you can NOT run it on the TiVo.

Yes, exactly.

The entire point of the GPL is to make sure that people can edit the software they use (refer back to the semi-famous "RMS and a bad printer driver" story), or more particularly, to guarantee them some basic freedoms about what they can do with that software. If, after editing, they can't use it anymore, then that's a problem.

What those edits involve has absolutely no bearing on that central point.

If TiVo didn't want to have people able to edit the code running on the TiVo unit, they shouldn't have released it under the GPL - including, if necessary, not re-using already-GPLed code from other people. They discovered a loophole by which they could fulfill the letter of the GPL but not its intent or spirit - allow people to edit the code, but not run it. RMS quite naturally wanted to close that loophole, to prevent them or others from doing the same thing in the future; the GPLv3 was his way of doing so.

(And no, "but you *can* edit it, you just can't run it afterwards" doesn't fly - because at that point, you're no longer editing the code you *are* running, you're editing code you *aren't* running and never will be able to run.)

The FSF's position: selling free software (i.e., charging for distribution of copies) is A-OK.

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.

...

Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.

You've got the blessing of the Free Software Foundation. Sell, baby, sell!

By design, it's "free software". The FSF is very clear on the matter.

See also: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

You sir are more than welcome to download the source code, pay the (in your words) "negligible $99 distribution costs", and redistribute this software for free, if it is a big enough deal to you. Trying to state that GPL software should not be sold flies in the face of what RMS has said - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html Good luck arguing out of either of these points though. As far as fair compensation to other contributors to your software - again, they are all welcome to go download the source code, pay the negligible distribution costs, and attempt to get their just compensation.

Perhaps in the future, you should utilize a better license to keep your software from ever being sold by others - the GPL does not fall in this category, sir.

Article Author: please submit the following URL to the XPilot copyright holder:

Free-software-is-OK-to-sell

In it, Richard Stallman (some of us would know him as the freaking author of the GPL) states that selling free software is OK provided the source code is also available and redistributable per the GPL (which you seem to be following this just fine). If this XPilot copyright holder would like to presume that he has a better understanding of the intent of the GPL than the freaking author of the license, tell him to hit himself with a clue bat. If the XPilot copyright holder intended that his software should have always been distributed for free, he should have used a different licensing agreement. His little moralistic crusade has no legs regarding the GPL.

The GPL is a license that was build to preserve freedom as defined here. An application on the iPhone is a direct violation of freedom 2:

* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

You might blame the GPL for not being more clear on that (fixed in GPLv3), but the conflict between a locked down device like the iPhone and Free Software is very real.

No, no. What you do instead, is send them 600,000 CD's with the Free Software Song on them.

Hello Bjorn...
Looking at your arguments of why this is wrong:
Fair compensation
The terms of the GPL specifically allow, and do not place any restriction on what is to be done with any money collected for selling a binary with GPL code in it. The license just requires that the code be made available. If you wanted to have some different restrictions on future use, you should have chosen a different license.
No sustainable competitive advantage
Here you are just attacking their business plan. It is a borderline ad-hominem attack. You're saying that because they're bad businessmen, they're should be forbidden from doing what is allowed by the license. In fact, you are attacking, in this stroke, every commercial use of GPL code. A bit bold, perhaps?
Alienation of contributors
Charging is allowed under GPL. Really specifically allowed. I guess the reason that there are so few linux variants and so few OSS contributors is that there are companies selling linux distros, or license for enterprise linux.
Limited user base
This is another attack on them, saying that they don't care about the game because their actions are reducing the potential field of customers on the iphone. The customer base would be zero without them, and since all of their sources are free, somebody else (cough, you) could make it available for free. And yes, they would be powerless to stop you, and would have no right to feel upset at you if you did. You make your bed, you lie in it.

You seem attached to a "Free as in beer" definition of GPL, which is a view that gnu quite explicitly does not share with you. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Perhaps your problem is that you just chose the wrong license, and you should have made your own, rather than reusing a free license that didn't meet your needs. This is the price of trying for "Free as in beer". You get what you pay for, and you really have no say over what you get.

Darwin code is under APSL, not BSD. It is incompatible with the GPL.

Parent is absolutely correct. The freedom to do what we wish with the software includes the freedom to sell. In parent's link, there is another link with further elaboration on the subject: Selling Free Software

The second paragraph really says it all: "Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on." (Emphasis mine)

In short, the developer who thinks that selling GPLed software is against the spirit of the GPL is simply wrong.

Lets not get dragged into an idiotic discussion about the various meanings of 'free'.

Uh, you pretty much started one with your OSS != FOSS assertion. The meaning of "free" as used in this case is central to your argument.

The 'F' in 'FOSS' talks about freedom of speech, not freedom from price. The iPhone version of Xpilot is certainly "FOSS" if you prefer to use that term. The FSF even encourages you to try to make as much money as you want off GPLed software.

On a side note, I don't think I've heard people use "FOSS" all that much. Unless they just use "OSS," they usually use "F/LOSS" or simply "FLOSS"; the "L" is there for "libre" to avoid confusing people as to which meaning of "free" (speech) is in use.

I still don't even think this is against the spirit of the GPL. These guys did something that adds value to an existing GPLed app, and complied with the terms of the GPL.

Note that the original developer doesn't seem to take issue with the fact that they ported specifically to the iPhone, or that the iPhone has some hurdles that need to be jumped before you can get your own code running on it. If the article summary is to be believed, the original developer's only beef is that the porters are charging for the app in the app store. And in that case, such charging is explicitly allowed, and in fact the FSF encourages people to make "as much as they wish or can" (their words) off GPLed apps.

So basically, the original author is just a whiner who chose his licensing terms poorly and isn't taking responsibility for that fact.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
"Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software."

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC2
Preamble ...When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

It's not a loophole, it is deliberately, specifically granted by the terms of the licence that you have the right to sell copies. Not only that, but:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
"6. ... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

As such, it is the original author who is attempting to violate the GPL by attempting to impose further restrictions. If they didn't like ALL the terms of the licence, they shouldn't have used the GPLv2 to release their work.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
"Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software."

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC2
Preamble ...When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

It's not a loophole, it is deliberately, specifically granted by the terms of the licence that you have the right to sell copies. Not only that, but:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
"6. ... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

As such, it is the original author who is attempting to violate the GPL by attempting to impose further restrictions. If they didn't like ALL the terms of the licence, they shouldn't have used the GPLv2 to release their work.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
"Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software."

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC2
Preamble ...When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

It's not a loophole, it is deliberately, specifically granted by the terms of the licence that you have the right to sell copies. Not only that, but:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
"6. ... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

As such, it is the original author who is attempting to violate the GPL by attempting to impose further restrictions. If they didn't like ALL the terms of the licence, they shouldn't have used the GPLv2 to release their work.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
"Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software."

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC2
Preamble ...When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

It's not a loophole, it is deliberately, specifically granted by the terms of the licence that you have the right to sell copies. Not only that, but:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
"6. ... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

As such, it is the original author who is attempting to violate the GPL by attempting to impose further restrictions. If they didn't like ALL the terms of the licence, they shouldn't have used the GPLv2 to release their work.

It's not a "loophole." Selling GPLed software an explicitly-documented allowed use.

(the text of the GPL is public domain)

Bzzzt!

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

    -- GPL v2

What you can do is to

use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to for permission.

. But the fSF discourages it because such changed versions "are almost certainly incompatible with the GPL."

(the text of the GPL is public domain)

Bzzzt!

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

    -- GPL v2

What you can do is to

use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to for permission.

. But the fSF discourages it because such changed versions "are almost certainly incompatible with the GPL."

The spirit of the GPL does not matter. All that matters is the reality of the license.

From the GPLv2:

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

Even though apple sends goons who force you to sign papers , strip search you, and take your lunch money in order to download binaries to a real iphone, that has no bearing on the freedom of the source code. The GPLv2 or GPLv3 explicitly allows anyone to sell GPL'd binaries as long as they make the source code available to anyone at no more than your cost of duplication and shipping.

Imagine I personally create a handheld prototype hardware device and port Xpilot to it. There are only two of these made and cost me $2000 each to manufacture these prototypes. I sell one of the device with Xpilot in it. I include a CD with the Xpilot source code with the device. If anyone else wants to compile Xpilot on my prototype device, they would have to buy one from me. They would have to pay me more than $2000 to make it worth my while to bother. And if I say no, I'm not building them anymore because I want to backpack around the world now, am I violating the 'Spirit' of the GPL because I distributed the binaries and sources for a platform which is no longer available? And how would this scenario be different if apple decided to stop selling iphone SDKs? Are you requiring apple's SDK to be open source? or requiring apple's hardware to be open source? why don't you require your intel motherboard to have an open source BIOS as well, seeing that you can't play Xpilot on a PC without paying some BIOS company like Pheonix for the right to boot your computer.

If the XPilot authors did not want anyone selling their software they should have used a different license.

Perhaps the GPLv4 will have an explicit anti-apple clause.

--jeffk++

No, this is complete bullshit. It's not the law, it is a license, so stop comparing apples to oranges. If they grant me a license to their code, which explicitly states that I may charge a fee for redistributing it (Section 1 - did you ever read the GPL v2), then they are bound to it. They also expect me as a re-distributor of their code to follow the terms. I suggest that you read this before posting again.

if anything, the AppStore is in violation of the GPL, and *not* the author.

However, if the author agreed to the restrictions imposed by the AppStore, they may themselves be in violation of the GPL. Section 7 says:

If...conditions are imposed on you...that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

I don't know what, if any, conditions are imposed on iPhone developers, but it is at least possible that, if the AppStore violates the GPL, an author who puts GPLed software on the AppStore would also be in violation.

It does not state that you may charge a fee for anything else.

Disagree as much as you want. There has never been a limit on selling Free software.
Selling Free Software

The FSF/RMS have made statements in the past about charging for GPL stuff being OK. e.g. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Although you may be justified if you argue that they're stating an interpretation that doesn't carry legal weight.

Directly from the gnu.org website and from the mouth of Stallman. Emphasis added.

"Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

The GPL does not requite that you redistribute the source for free, it requires that you don't charge more for the source than the binary however.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#CompanyGPLCostsMoney

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee