abdwef Wrote:@kazelee

As moderator, you should know that it is customary to PM a member if you wish to discuss something with them in an administrative capacity, not post it in public in an attempt to embarrass them. Please extend me that courtesy in the future. Thanks.

The points not to embarrass you. The point is to tell you that you're no more correct than the people you are reporting. If you can't see that, take a closer look.

Quote:Moreover, it would be extremely helpful if you were to use blue text when speaking in an administrative capacity, since I can't tell which you're speaking in when you say

If I were acting in an Administrative capacity, you would know.

Quote:I'm going to assume that you're not speaking as a moderator. Regardless, I will not "leave it at that", because I think you are incorrect. I think he is violating the GPL, which is copyright infringement.

"If he holds the copyright," he can sell it, however he cannot pursue litigation against others who decide to do so as well, unless they've broken conditions of the license. What you think is not very relevant, here.

Quote:In the Rules section of these forums, it states:

Quote:These forums do not condone [copyright infringement]

On the GPL website it states:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html...AllowMoney

Quote:The entire point I am making is that the current situation is not understandable from my, or from JimmySeal's, point of view. He still hasn't explained why his close-source app doesn't violate the GPL.

Like I said before he can sell, he just can't expect others not be able to do it as well.

Also, nukemarine's headed in the right direction with what he said. Though, there'd have to be significant modification/addition to prove it is not a derivative work.

Heh, betwen the GPL FAQ (such as various lines after what kazelee posted, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html...AllowMoney) and resolve's comments/what they're actually doing and supporting/have supported by their words and actions over the years, there's not much to discuss unless a certain person has a really hard time understanding the subject and yet still feels they're licensed to insult and wrongheadedly crusade against a developer's actions/personal life.

I think it's fair to say that anyone who makes claims on either side of the issue should cite all their statements.

As others noted, according to the GNU FAQ, Resolve's understanding seems fine. The issue of a copyright holder releasing code in a non-free program that had previously been released under the GNU GPL is addressed in the FAQ as follows:

gnu.org Wrote:[...] legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times.

Maybe JimmySeal had non-copyright holder licensors in mind? Also, it seems subsequent derivative work or extensions by licensors are required to be released under GNU GPL (see quote below), so I don't think one can portion bits off like Nukemarine suggests unless they are considered totally separate (what they refer to as "aggregate")

Interestingly, the creator of GNU also supports the use by others of "selling exceptions":

Quote:Selling exceptions depends fundamentally on using a copyleft license, such as the GNU GPL, for the free software release. A copyleft license permits embedding in a larger program only if the whole combined program is released under that license; this is how it ensures extended versions will also be free. Thus, users that want to make the combined program proprietary need special permission. Only the copyright holder can grant that, and selling exceptions is one style of doing so. Someone else, who received the code under the GNU GPL or another copyleft license, cannot grant an exception.

(Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html)

What's with that site - some of the language strikes me as a bit over the top: "enemies of the community"? lol

If you believe that the license is being inappropriately applied or misunderstood, please post the relevant portions of the license that back up your claim. The burden of proof should not be solely upon the accused.

With the thread now closed, it's a shame that one ignorant person has effectively stifled any talk on the upcoming app.

Since abd seems to be quite misinformed, I invite them to take the issue up with the FSF directly - they have a contact address for licensing issues. I am totally confident that my actions are both legally and ethically sound, and I suspect abd's in for quite a surprise.

I agree... Why close the whole thread? I wanna keep discussing the app

Thora Wrote:

gnu.org Wrote:[...] legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times.

Thank you Thora. It seems I was mistaken and I retract my statement.

Nukemarine is still mistaken when he says this (I assume he's not referring here to the copyright holders of the original work):

Quote:My basic understanding of GPL is I can use it as I like, and even add my own code to the material, package and sell it. HOWEVER, I must release the source ONLY of the GPL material I used. My own proprietary code is still my intellectual property and I don't have to release that. So even derivative works do not have to be released like you're suggesting.

As shown here in the FAQ:

Quote:Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

sethg Wrote:I agree... Why close the whole thread? I wanna keep discussing the app

Kazelee normally locks a thread for a week or so then unlocks it. That usually lets everyone on all sides getting in a tizzy to calm down. If not, there'd still be no discussion of the app going on (or it's drowned in the mass posting) so the result is still the same as the thread getting locked.

Did I just put tizzy in a sentence? Gods, I must be tired.

@Jimmy,

I'll be honest and say I have next to no knowledge of the subject. I like the idea, but I never read too much into the legal aspect till the thread popped up. Well, there was a bit a few years back dealing with Linux being sued by that company backed by Microsoft saying the GPL is unconstitutional or some such garbage. Anyway, my example was wrong as yes, any derivative of a GPL must be left open according to the FAQ. Though it does seem I can give GPL a license to the work and still keep my own rights to it to license to others without the GPL open source restrictions (which seems to be the original dispute here).

sethg Wrote:I agree... Why close the whole thread? I wanna keep discussing the app

I liked the old thread too

The other thread has been open again since before sethg posted in this one.

I don't see where the confusion came from. People seem to not understand the very concept of licensing, not just GPL.

When you license something (under GPL, BSD, or anything else), you are giving certain rights to the end user under certain conditions, you are not abandoning your own rights. It becomes more complicated when there are numerous contributors to the code (contributors retain ownership of contributed code and are licensing it back to the project), but Damien already said that he obtained permission for the few bits of contributed code.

In other words, Anki's GPL doesn't apply to Damien since he owns the code.

To clarify: I have permission to use user-contributed code in AnkiOnline. None of the code is actually used, though - the user contributed code is things like i18n and kanji stats that aren't exposed in AnkiOnline. The reason I asked the contributors for permission is so that I may be able to sell AnkiOnline licenses to businesses/educational institutions in the future.

When I ported to the iPhone, I didn't port that code over, so there is no user-contributed code in the iPhone port.

abdwef Wrote:He still hasn't explained why his close-source app doesn't violate the GPL

the FSF agree that you can't violate your own license...

"I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free programs.
To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times."

"Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a “violation” of the GPL."

from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html...perViolate

I would say that pretty much settles it. Everyone, back to your knitting.

[ファブリス]

Moved to Koohii Lounge.

More food for thought on this issue: according to the FSF, I would not have been able to put Anki on the App Store as a GPL app.

http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance/

I would be happy to discuss the American view on copyright with any of the folks developing on this or other sites. I'm a corporate attorney and I do alot in IP. Though I don't want to drown the forum in it, so if any of you guys have questions, email me and I'd be happy to chat with you about any concerns you have.