Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

theKompany's Shawn Gordon On The GPL

Posted by Hemos on from the license-flame-on dept.

replicant_deckard writes "In this short but insightful essay Shawn Gordon, the founder of theKompany, explains why GPL doesn't work for software companies producing graphical and end-user friendly stuff. This reminds us that GPL has so far been useful just for infrastructure-level hacker stuff like operating systems, databases etc. " Of course, it's been used for end user - OpenOffice, GAIM, and other projects.

8 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong URL by BoyPlankton · · Score: 5, Informative

    TheKompany's URL

  2. Define "charging for source" by Shagg · · Score: 3, Informative

    Some of them become verbally violent and abusive when I point out that the GPL provides for us to charge for the source code, we just have to make it available, and this we have done.

    Yes, the GPL allows you to charge for the source, rather than offer it as a free download. But, IIRC you are only allowed to charge for your cost in producing the copy of the source. IE you can charge for the cost of burning a CD and shipping to the customer, but you can't offer the source for $500 and be compliant with the GPL.

    Anyone else have more details on what he meant by this? If they're using GPL software, and then trying to charge for the source in order to make a profit off of distributing it, then the customers have a right to complain.

    --
    Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    1. Re:Define "charging for source" by ip_vjl · · Score: 4, Informative
      According to the GPL FAQ

      Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

      Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.


      It's funny that people assume downloading from a company costs nothing. I can only guess that these are people who are unaware that most companies pay for whatever bandwidth they use, as opposed to the all-you-can-drink type access you get from home/dorm internet access.

      - vin

    2. Re:Define "charging for source" by Mr+Windows · · Score: 2, Informative

      The product that he's referring to is korelib

  3. In related news... by AirLace · · Score: 4, Informative
    RedHat explains how they make money off services: Making free software pay - BBC News:



    Red Hat does not own Linux, so it cannot charge for each copy it puts out in the way that Microsoft charges for Windows or Sun charges for Solaris.

    "The only way we can make money in this business is in support," Mr Hoffmann told BBC News Online.

    "That ranges from training down to system maintenance, deployment and integration with other applications.

    "We focus on those customers who are able to pay the bill - the enterprises," he said.



    Give me a company that sells support over one that sells software any day. The moment you put software in a box, its most important component -- the ability to be adapted and updated for security fixes and feature enhancements -- dies. Anyway, which is more successful, "theKompany" or RedHat?

    There's also an interesting analysis on LinuxToday of theKompany's tactics and how they allegedly intentionally damage Free Software. Although I wouldn't take all the accusations at face value, there's certainly something worrying about the claims.

    1. Re:In related news... by taion · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's also an interesting analysis on LinuxToday of theKompany's tactics and how they allegedly intentionally damage Free Software. Although I wouldn't take all the accusations at face value, there's certainly something worrying about the claims.

      What, I shouldn't take all the accusations at face value just because they've been debunked as being completely wrong in a reply?

      Such skeptics we have here... tsk tsk.

      --

      ----------
      Floccinaucinihilipilification - the action or habit of judging something to be worthless
  4. Re:What we really need by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is such a license, and it is called the GPL.

    Red Hat's boxed distros, just as an example, fulfill your requirements exactly. The only real difference is that RHAT ships source CDs instead of making you download it off the Net.

    Or have I missed the point of your post?

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  5. You guys are both wrong by burris · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can charge as much as you want for GPL software no matter where you got it from. However, if someone you sold a binary-only copy to comes asking for the source code then you have to make it available to them for a reasonable cost of media and distrobution only. You can't sell GPL software for $19.95 and then say source will cost an additional million dollars (effectively making the software closed source.)

    The clincher is you can't stop someone you sold a copy to from giving it away for no cost.

    burris