selling GPL sources

Guilherme C. Hazan lista at
Tue Sep 20 16:51:12 UTC 2005


>> Well, both statements are true. I would like to distribute the binaries
>> for free, and part of the sources (the vm part) for a fee. This happens
>> because we're releasing a new version that will have an advertisement
>> saying "this GPL version does not allow closed-source development" in
>> our GPL distribution (we have both LGPL for people that pay and GPL for
>> community users).
> I would suggest rewording that splash screen. It suggests that "this"
> GPL version does not allow closed-source development, when the truth is
> that EVERY GPL version of the software does not allow closed-source
> development (if distributed). I think what you intend to do is
> distinguish it from your LGPL version, so perhaps you want a splash that
> reads:
> "This version of the software is licensed under the GPL and hence you
> may not distribute closed-source derivatives. The software is also
> available under the LGPL license. See [our website] for details."

"may not" or "must not"?

>> But, if we release the sources for everyone, as we
>> currently do, then people could just recompile the vm without the
>> splash. (i'm completely aware that someone could buy and do it, but this
>> makes things more dificult)
> I think you're worrying too much, but in the case imagined, you can
> resolve most issues by keeping good records of who pays for the LGPL
> version. If someone ELSE starts distributing proprietary software that
> you suspect is built upon your GPL version, then you go after them.

Sure, we do maintain such list here. In fact, although our LGPL users 
could distribute their versions (which comes with lots of other 
libraries not distributed in the GPL version), they do not do so because 
they respect our work. They know that, distributing what we use to 
survive, with will kill us and will kill theirselves.

>> So, we would like to charge something for people to download the
>> sources. 
> You are guaranteed the ability to do this (with certain provisos), but
> keep in mind that the very first person who pays is also guaranteed the
> ability to redistribute those sources for free on their site. So this is
> a bit of a pointless exercise for you to engage in.

Sure, we're aware of that.

>> Also, this distribution cost is somewhat strange. If the distribution is
>> the internet, is it right to charge 100usd for it?
> Probably not. It'd be hard to demonstrate that this was one's actual cost.

What would be a reasonable price then? 50 bucks?



More information about the License-discuss mailing list