Matthew Garrett ([info]mjg59) wrote,
@ 2006-08-21 21:42:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Well, the GNU General Public Licence states -- as part of Section 3) of the licence that I must provide source code on request for no more than the cost of physically performing the distribution.

Given that the host this box is on actually costs me $110.95AUD every thirty (30) days to run, $9.90, as nice as that is -- still will cost me over $100 AUD to distribute the code at all.


No, that's the "I paid $20,000 to buy this webserver, and the bandwidth is $200 per gigabyte, and you're the only person asking for the source so you have to pay all of it" argument. The GPL isn't meant to cover the cost of a CD burner, merely the cost of the media and postage. It doesn't cover the cost of your connection, but it could cover the specific cost of the bandwidth (if you're charged per byte). If it genuinely costs you AUD5 to send 50MB or so, then fine. But you made it sound like the money was supposed to cover the time and effort you put into it, and that's not fine. If you're distributing GPLed binaries to people, you either give them the source at the same time or you provide the source at cost.

And, for what it's worth, the correct response to a polite note from a copyright holder requesting that you conform to your license obligations is generally to apologise for breaching their license rather than , say, posting a petulant whine. Especially if you're counting a request to conform to the license as a "request to remove the code".



(Post a new comment)


[info]ronebofh
2006-08-21 09:03 pm UTC (link)
You jerk! Can't you see he can't even stand up? You are the worst person in the world to threaten a cripple!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

o_O
(Anonymous)
2006-08-21 09:30 pm UTC (link)
Oh well, apart of the fact that this does not allow him to break the copyright of others he added this after he received the "threat". A fee for bandwidth is fine, as Matthew says. But a fee for work is not. And IMHO he is free to distribute the binaries together with the source at a cost. He is just not free to distribute the binaries for free. (Especially considering that the binaries eat up much more bandwidth than the source does.) So I told him to remove the *binaries*, he provided for free. *cough* -- The one who broke the camel's back. (wtf)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]cesy
2006-08-22 04:24 pm UTC (link)
Don't you think it's a bit cheap of said cripple to use his disability as an excuse when someone points out that he's breaking the law and politely asks him to stop? Inability to stand up does not mean you're allowed to break the rules of a licence.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ronebofh, 2006-08-22 06:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cesy, 2006-08-22 06:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ronebofh, 2006-08-22 06:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cesy, 2006-08-22 06:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]king_of_wrong, 2006-08-22 07:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cesy, 2006-08-22 07:35 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2006-08-31 06:05 am UTC (link)
Matthew has written one of the best programs in the world for text input by the profoundly impaired. He's smart. Just because you have an impairment/disability, can't stand up or have cerebral palsy doesn't necessarily make you a better software developer or a nicer person. Cripples can be arseholes too you know. Bloody spastics are the very worst of the lot - single minded and
think they own the owrld. [*].

Andy - software developer, wheelchair user and spastic - and also someone
who appreciates Matthew's talent :)
[* ESR, possibly Bruce Perens if you believe Wikipedia - and Andrew Cater]

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2006-09-08 08:24 am UTC (link)
You patronising wanker! Why does being a "cripple" entitle you to break the GPL? And you don't need to stand up to provide source code!

You jerk! Can't you see he can't even stand up? You are the worst person in the world to threaten a cripple!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ronebofh, 2006-09-08 03:22 pm UTC

[info]pseudomonas
2006-08-21 09:28 pm UTC (link)
Could he cut at least some of the burden of uploading the source by seeding it with bittorrent? In the worst case it'd be more-or-less as present, I suppose.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mjg59
2006-08-21 10:46 pm UTC (link)
I can't see any reason why not. It's customarily used for data transfer nowadays.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ajaxxx
2006-08-22 01:18 pm UTC (link)
He could have cut the cost by uploading the patchset or tarball to the appropriate bugtracker, which has an attachment feature for a reason.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

The GPL does allow labor costs
(Anonymous)
2006-08-21 09:55 pm UTC (link)
Matthew, you are making up language that is not there. There is no language in the GPL allowing charges for bandwidth and postage, and forbidding charging for time and effort. Read the GPL again. Fair labor charges are allowable.

Of course, the first person who pays can then put the source on the net.

This is Joe Buck, I'm on the GCC steering committee.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: The GPL does allow labor costs
(Anonymous)
2006-08-21 10:00 pm UTC (link)
Yes, but he made binaries available without source.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: The GPL does allow labor costs
[info]mjg59
2006-08-21 10:45 pm UTC (link)
Section 3(b) of the GPL:

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

Bandwidth and postage costs are, depending on the means of distribution, clearly within the realm of the cost of physically performing source distribution. Labour costs that are directly related to the act of performing the distribution may also fall into that field. But it's pretty clear that "your cost of physically performing source distribution" is supposed to relate to the per-instance cost of providing source, and not any extra overhead associated with that. The alternative is that anyone could set an arbitrary value for distribution under 3(b), simply by spending that amount on a piece of hardware. That's clearly insane. The GPL doesn't let me say "You can have the binary for free. Source will cost you $2,000,000 because my server is made of platinum".

Of course, you're welcome to set any price you want for distribution of binaries. But if you're distributing binaries for free, you don't have that luxury.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: The GPL does allow labor costs - [info]fiona_kitty, 2006-08-21 10:58 pm UTC
Re: The GPL does allow labor costs - [info]David Adam <zanchey> [typekey.com], 2006-08-22 03:05 am UTC
Re: The GPL does allow labor costs - [info]mjg59, 2006-08-22 03:14 am UTC
Re: The GPL does allow labor costs - [info]David Adam <zanchey> [typekey.com], 2006-08-22 03:18 am UTC
Re: The GPL does allow labor costs - [info]mjg59, 2006-08-22 06:52 am UTC
Re: The GPL does allow labor costs - [info]David Adam <zanchey> [typekey.com], 2006-08-22 07:04 am UTC
Re: The GPL does allow labor costs - [info]mjg59, 2006-08-22 07:32 am UTC
Re: The GPL does allow labor costs - (Anonymous), 2006-08-25 02:24 pm UTC
Polite?
(Anonymous)
2006-08-21 11:42 pm UTC (link)
Like I also wrote Philipp Kern, the _politeness_ is the entire problem. The mails you guys sent to Paul (nevermind whether or not he has some disability or another) where everything but polite. They were right out THREADS. Why not just tell him "thanks for your efforts, just wanted to tell you that you might run into trouble without offering source downloads"? Or did you even mail him and ask "hi Paul, I saw you're offering these binaries, wondered if you could send me the sources"? It wouldn't have been that hard, really.

Best regards,
Raphael J. Schmid

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Polite?
(Anonymous)
2006-08-21 11:45 pm UTC (link)
http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/polite_note.txt

Seems pretty polite.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Polite?
[info]mjg59
2006-08-22 12:33 am UTC (link)
I threatened nobody. I pointed out that there are obligations associated with the distribution of software that I (amongst a very large number of other people) hold the copyright to. I didn't ask him to remove it. I didn't threaten to sue. I simply requested that he actually follow the license that allows him to distribute the code at all. Is stopping a speeding motorist and pointing out that they were breaking the speed limit a threat?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Polite? - (Anonymous), 2006-08-25 01:49 pm UTC
yawn
[info]jmtd
2006-08-22 12:35 am UTC (link)
What a rubbish rebuttal (the IP-hosted site). Did he even write the code he's so proud of hosting? I don't see what bringing his Cerebral Palsy / Mother's cancer into things has got to do with it. Isn't there a law a bit like Godwin's for such behaviour?

(Reply to this)


[info]lordmuck
2006-08-22 09:46 am UTC (link)
That's a shame (to the extent that it's a shame he couldn't get it right; not that he's been forced to sort it out).

I took a look at his site yesterday, and I thought he was simply charging for access to binaries, source and patches - i.e., buy a single ticket to get into the show.

That would have been an interesting experiment. I wonder how many would have spent money on that; I would have thought that he would have made more than $10, and it would have been ok with the GPL.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2006-08-22 11:22 am UTC (link)
I took a look at his site yesterday, and I thought he was simply charging for access to binaries, source and patches - i.e., buy a single ticket to get into the show.
That would have been completely fine, IMHO.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2006-08-22 11:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fooishbar, 2006-08-22 01:53 pm UTC
being right vs. fostering community
(Anonymous)
2006-08-22 06:30 pm UTC (link)
Did Paul Drain screw up? yes. Should he have known better? absolutely. He contributes to gnome regularly, so he should be familiar with the GPL. Did his screw up benefit him at all? no, it looks like it's costing him far more to host binaries.

The handling of this little episode (including references to "a petulant whine" and "correct response") is not likely to encourage him to continue contributing (he was trying to fix bugs for heaven's sake). If the point of the GPL is to encourage community-driven work, inflating a relatively minor (and probably inadvertant) GPL violation into a situation that harms that aim seems entirely counter-productive.

Score one for Matthew Garrett's ego, score -1 for FOSS

I think all the geeks who pounce on people who make mistakes should restrain themselves for just a moment and figure out what kind of response on their part is most likely to further the aims of FOSS in the long run. Being right is not the same thing as acting intelligently.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: being right vs. fostering community
[info]king_of_wrong
2006-08-22 07:44 pm UTC (link)
Stupid question, but what is the benefit to fostering the FOSS community at the cost of free software?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: being right vs. fostering community - [info]mjg59, 2006-08-22 09:10 pm UTC
\o/
[info]lordmuck
2006-08-25 10:12 am UTC (link)
Given that you're now an officer of "The GPL Police", I think you should be entitled to carry firearms for the dispensing of instant justice.

This intrigues me. I thought Mepis were now building from an Ubuntu base? Presumably, they are attempting to piss off as much of their upstream with their GPL-hating as possible...

(Reply to this)

As someone /with/ a Radeon Mobility M6...
[info]lionsphil
2006-08-25 04:52 pm UTC (link)
...thanks a ton, Paul. Very helpful.

You know why I never actually said thanks for this code? Becuase it never made its way into the frickin' X.Org distribution, so this is the first I've heard of it! Gah! As usual, ego gets in the way of making software which is actually useful to man or beast.

Back to enjoying my daily lockups as this laptop switching in and out of fullscreen mode in QEMU. Or does anything much involving OpenGL.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: As someone /with/ a Radeon Mobility M6...
[info]jmtd
2006-08-25 06:58 pm UTC (link)
i810 chipset? Possibly this bug?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: As someone /with/ a Radeon Mobility M6... - [info]jmtd, 2006-08-25 06:58 pm UTC
Diplomacy
(Anonymous)
2006-08-25 05:11 pm UTC (link)
From reading comments about cipherfunk, and the comments that he was a regular contributor, I think that it's safe to say that he understands the GPL and likes it, but messed up this time.

It seems like he wants to contribute, so when the polite request came to fulfill his obligations under the GPL (there were no threats or demands to shut down), he got frustrated because he didn't feel he was able to and posted a rant .

Unfortunately, the rant has polarized the issue in many people's eyes because of his disabilities (and people want to be chilvalrous), that we're forgetting the people involved. Yes he messed up when he didn't fulfill his GPL obligations. Yes he messed up with the rant. But he was apparently a good contributor, and there is a possibility of bringing him back in the fold and ensuring that he gets the recognition he is due for his past and current contributions.

If he can't provide source code for the cipherfunk repository, maybe someone else can or he can accept donations to keep the site up or work with one of the other repositories (e.g. PLF) to ensure that he can still be contributing and recognized for his contribution without having to worry about the costs and management of the repository.

IMO, diplomacy is the best course of action now. Let's please let the issue go to rest until we hear more.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Diplomacy
(Anonymous)
2006-08-25 05:18 pm UTC (link)
He's a fucking spaz. Who cares? His dick is prolly all shrivelled and he shits himself.

Actually that might make a good porno. Shrinky Dick the Spaz and his Shitty Pants.

Whining wheelchair boung cunt.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Diplomacy - (Anonymous), 2006-08-25 05:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lionsphil, 2006-08-25 09:48 pm UTC
GPL jihadists
(Anonymous)
2006-08-25 09:25 pm UTC (link)
And thankfully we have BSD so we don't have to deal with GPL jihadists.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: GPL jihadists
[info]mjg59
2006-08-25 09:28 pm UTC (link)
The BSD license explicitly permits vendors to provide closed versions of derivative works. Do you think it's wrong for those vendors to then enforce the extra restrictions they've placed on their software? If not, why is it wrong for the authors of GPLed code to wish to enforce their copyrights?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: GPL jihadists - (Anonymous), 2006-08-26 02:19 am UTC
Re: GPL jihadists - [info]mjg59, 2006-08-26 02:26 am UTC
Thanks Matthew
(Anonymous)
2006-08-25 09:46 pm UTC (link)
Hi mjg59 :)

thanks for your work on the GPL front.

I know, it can be hard sometimes, to be the "asshole" for some people, but you know, sometimes I like being an asshole.

Please, keep up your work, and thanks for the work on the laptop front (r200 needs to be installed tomorrow morning)

Regards,

\sh

(Reply to this)


[info]gethen
2006-08-26 04:02 am UTC (link)
look, it's a bear!

A BEAR!

*run*

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mjg59
2006-08-26 04:04 am UTC (link)
What the hell's going on? Ed with a tail appeared on IRC, and now you're talking about animals. It's like 2004 all over again. I swear, if you mention dead cats in boxes, I'm going to be very upset.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Bit confused but my Suggestion and Thought
(Anonymous)
2006-08-26 11:59 am UTC (link)
Hi, Looking at that website and this and internet in general. AM Not sure which of the below cases is the actual thing But I say my point here: a) IF CipherFunk was providing binary for free and had refused to give source code on request (along with some fair monetory contribution to Cipher) then CIPHER would be WRONG b) IF CipherFunk was providing binary for free and asking A$5 for source code then CIPHER IS RIGHT and YOU ARE WRONG, irrespective of what GPL says, from a Human point of view. In general Rather than blindly telling a person you are in violation and fix the situation, may be you should have tried to understand what was his stand about releasing the source modifications. Only if he refused to respond to that in a proper way you should send a business like mail. HanishKVC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Bit confused but my Suggestion and Thought
(Anonymous)
2006-08-28 01:37 pm UTC (link)
Then he should have been charging $5 for the binary.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Sourceforge, BerliOS, Google
(Anonymous)
2006-08-27 05:28 am UTC (link)
Am I the only one reading all of this and thinking, Sourceforge, BerliOS, code.google.com/hosting?

What of all those free hosting options available to all open-source projects?

Fuck a disability. I've often told friends that I can deal with going blind and cripple. I can still touch-type, and screen-readers work.

If you can't afford the server, give it up, and signup for a free site at Homestead or Geocities. Or, even better, since you can only get $10 in donations, get a shared hosting package for $8. They're available. Just search.

None of his reasons for not complying with the license are valid. The license says provide the source. Matter of fact, it says nothing about providing the binaries, so he could have provided source packages only and saved himself some headache.

Now that I think about it, it might have been a better idea, to give away the source, and charge $30 for compiled versions. Maybe he would have made more than $10 for it.

And to all you people talking about us loosing a good contributor? How good could he have been if he will blatantly violate the GPL like this? I write code and make it available under Apache, GPL, LGPL and My_Own_Proprietary_License (tm) licenses depending on the intended purpose and its origins.

Documentation, I make available under CreativeCommons, FDL and My_Own_Proprietary_License (tm) licenses once again, based on purpose.

It saddens me to lose a developer/user/contributor in the FOSS community, but that sadness is easily remedied and replaced by the joy that people other than myself take software licensing seriously. Free license or not.

PS. I can't stand either.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…