Not the real issue
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| devnet Aug 26, 2006 10:05 PM EDT |
http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/160-Cipherfunk.org... The issue actually was about $$ and not that he wasn't making the source available in a timely fashion. People got upset when he charged for said source. According to the GPL, he's allowed to do this to fray bandwidth cost. What get's my goat is that these people came at him wrong. Instead of approaching someone who potentially patched 5 bugs like he's a flippin GPL violator on purpose, they should have used a bit of tact. |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 26, 2006 10:49 PM EDT |
Am I correct in thinking that cipherfunk was NOT charging for the binaries? Your blog links to a FAQ section on the GPL, and it states that "...therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary." If the fee for downloading the binaries is $0, should not the fee for downloading the source be $0? That's how I read it, at least. Perhaps I have misread? The suggestion on the story link on LXer was that folks follow the lead of the FSF and charge for the binaries and give the source away for free. I think Warren Woodford at Mepis has overreacted on this issue. If you aren't happy with the GPL, then perhaps you shouldn't work on or with GPL software. His position seems more compatible with the BSD license than with the GPL. |
| swbrown Aug 27, 2006 2:11 AM EDT |
"I'm over it. Really." says the massive whine page. Maybe Warren and this guy need to shop around for a community that fits their philosophies better rather than spend so much effort crying about it and doing the "Then I'm gonna take my ball and go home" routine. |
| dinotrac Aug 27, 2006 5:13 AM EDT |
swbrown - Who put the corncob up your pipe? Let's see: Here's a guy suffering with cerebral palsy, whose mother has cancer, and who has contributed 5 (count 'em, 5!) patches. He's posted binaries up free of charge. He also violated the GPL. That really can't be allowed, but SHEEEESH!! Where is the humanity? This is not some money-grubbing leech trying to bypass his obligations. This is a contributor with shallow pockets and plenty of his own problems right now. Frankly, I found his page to be incredibly restrained. To put this in the kind of terms you seem to need: If I were in his position (not likely, given my lack of talent), and some pompous leech made you comment to me, I would be sorely tempted to ram a broken broomstick down your throat. As nicely as I could, of course. |
| crusadingknight Aug 27, 2006 6:19 AM EDT |
From the looks of it, he was distributing a patch which he refused to distribute upstream. Perhaps you don't know, but rogue patches are a major problem for upstream. Patches in .diff format can be posted to upstream via bugtrackers, mailing lists, etc., which causes no bandwidth cost to the contributor. |
| dek Aug 27, 2006 6:39 AM EDT |
(my 2 cents) First of all, can anyone confirm that cipherfunk has a disability? I am sorry for the situation he became involved in but using one's personal situation as he did can be construed as whining a bit. I, for one, would like to see corroboration of his personal situation before I become too "het" up over his story. Yes, I agree that he was approached badly using bullying tactics as is evidenced by the email he received. I would hope that the Canonical/Ubuntu folks might understand that and offer him some of their bandwidth in exchange for his work. That would solve both problems nicely. In the future, I would hope that the community might learn from this situation. It behooves us to tone down the rhetoric around GPL violations until a fuller understanding of a situation can be achieved. Willful violations are one thing but this situation seems to be more inadvertent -- if indeed it is a violation. It would seem to be questionable based on a strict interpretation of the GPL. However, if you factor into the situation that Canonical is a larger entity than cipherfunk it looks like bullying. It would have been better to ask the FSF for their opinion before going after him. After all, the developers are not lawyers. Canonical (or the FSF) could have at least offered him something like hosting his site if he agreed to open up his source. I can understand that he needs money to operate a site and I can't blame him for trying to use his work to do that. Whether it was strictly legal -- I'll leave that to the lawyers. (/my 2 cents) Don K. |
| dinotrac Aug 27, 2006 6:44 AM EDT |
ck - No argument that he needed to correct his action one way or the other. It's just that I see no evidence of nefarious intentions, just angst and misunderstanding. Cases like this tend to make a lot of license debates look silly, actually. I suspect many people who work under one or another free license don't fully understand the implications of their choice. Sometiimes, it means that a hard-working and seemingly well-intended developer's contribution is not acceptable. And this contribution was not acceptable. On the other hand, language like "call it a threat, I call it advise." is not appropriate to a situation like this one. It's a real jackass line, suitable for lawyers and leg-breakers. And, for the benefit of those who belittle him for withdrawing his patches...well...that's his right every bit as much as it is for authors of GPL'd software to want the the GPL followed when their code is distributed. He offered them up and was told "No thanks." He could either change his offer or withdraw it. He chose the latter. So what? |
| dinotrac Aug 27, 2006 6:48 AM EDT |
dek - Going to the FSF is a great suggestion. They are, short of the courts, the ultimate authority on the GPL. They certainly are the moral authority. They also have a great deal of experience negotiating solutions to GPL problems and apparent GPL problems. I'm sure they know the difference between bad guys and good guys who happen to be on the wrong side of the terms. I'm equally sure they know the approach most appropriate to each situation. BTW - In reading his page, I did not get the sense that he was using his disability for sympathy or anything. More like his disability is an inescapable fact of his life. |
| devnet Aug 27, 2006 7:25 AM EDT |
Quoting:From the looks of it, he was distributing a patch which he refused to distribute upstream.Nope...he tried to distribute it upstream but no one wanted to integrate patches. Look on the bugs at the dates he published links to his patches. Quoting:If the fee for downloading the binaries is $0, should not the fee for downloading the source be $0?No...he's allowed to charge only up to the amount required for providing the source. IOW, he can't charge more for the binaries than he does for the source and he can't charge more than it costs to provide said source. So requiring a donation ISN'T violating the GPL. By offering source this way, he WAS offering people an opportunity to get ahold of it so there was no violation. As I said, the real problem was that people felt he shouldn't be charging cash for it. You can see this on the buglist traffic as well. Also, people didn't look for the source code to be provided. There was a paypal button with instructions above it on how to get the source. Also provided in a readme with the patches was the same instructions. So the links to the source were there...these two contributors just didn't want to look for it. |
| dinotrac Aug 27, 2006 7:37 AM EDT |
>There was a paypal button with instructions above it on how to get the source. Also provided in a readme with the patches was the same instructions. So the links to the source were there...these two contributors just didn't want to look for it. Interesting. Makes the FSF route look a lot more sensible, doesn't it? They might have explained the whys and wherefores to these guys and kept any trouble from flaring up at all. |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 27, 2006 8:54 AM EDT |
Sounds like you're saying he did nothing wrong. If that's the case, why not tell folks to STFU and keep on keepin' on? devnet, you're saying he can't charge more for the binaries than he does for the source, but the FAQ from the FSF states exactly the opposite. EXACTLY the opposite, that he can't charge more for the source than he does for the binaries. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDown... '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.' The only way I see to read that is to say free binaries = free source, paid binaries = paid (or free) source (your choice). Charge for the binaries, give the source away for free. If we go from the idea that "he can't charge more for the binaries than he does for the source and he can't charge more than it costs to provide said source" then no one can really make any money with Free Software, and that's just not the case. I'm sure more people would have been willing to pay for his binaries than would have been willing to donate for the source, and he could have filled the void that required the patches without having to worry about not being able to cover the costs of the server and bandwidth. |
| dinotrac Aug 27, 2006 11:56 AM EDT |
rij - There's a certain logic to applying fees to the binaries. After all, the GPL is designed to encourage the distribution of source code, not binaries. One question, though: What if you distribute source code only? You can definitely charge to distribute source code only. Can you then distribute free binaries to people who pay for the source code? To people who don't get the source code? That last case appears to be no, the next to last case would also seem to be no...and nonsensical. |
| jimf Aug 27, 2006 1:14 PM EDT |
What bothers me is the proliferation of GPL vigilantes who have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. These guys are just not qualified to make a call on anything like this. They are certainly 'not' the GPL 'police'. If they feel there is a real problem then they would be best served by contacting the FSF. IMO Cipherfunk would be entirely justified in telling the punks to kiss off. |
| dinotrac Aug 27, 2006 2:08 PM EDT |
jimf - Bingo!!!! It's not that hard to run afoul of any license without meaning to. An army of vigilantes is not the best way to handle misunderstandings and cases that can be worked out. |
| devnet Aug 28, 2006 7:24 AM EDT |
You can charge a fee even if the program is free to distribute the source. However, it can only be equivalent to cover the cost of distributing this source. That's where he was correct...he could charge for the cost of his bandwidth. That's why I didn't understand what these people were doing. The source clearly was provided via paypal and it was within his right to charge a fee that covers bandwidth cost IAW the GPL. |
| jdixon Aug 28, 2006 7:57 AM EDT |
> The source clearly was provided via paypal and it was within his right to charge a fee that covers bandwidth cost IAW the GPL. That's my understanding, yes. We'd have to ask the FSF to be sure. From memory, the wording is about covering the cost of the "media". I'd think that would mean bandwith in such a case, but IANAL. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!