Paulie, dear friend. ;-)

[Andreas Ericsson]

Paul L. Allen wrote:
> Andreas Ericsson writes:
> 
>>> The GPL is quite clear that the source be available upon request.
>>
>>
>> No. It quite clearly states that noone can be forced to do anything 
>> they don't want to with regards to the source. What part of the below 
>> FAQ entry is it that you don't understand?
> 
> 
> I understand it all.  And also the other FAQ entries which show the
> meaning you ascribe to it is incorrect.  And also all the other pages
> on the site which show that you are wrong.
> 

Ok. So how about this. I have a copy of a GPL'd program. Ask me for the 
source. Assume I say no (which I would, but only for you, Paulie). Would 
the FSF lawyers have a case?

>> --[ snip ]----
>> * If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make 
>> it available to the public without a charge?
>>     No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL 
>> gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a 
>> fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on 
>> a web site for the general public.
>> --[ snip ]----
> 
> 
> Note that it does not say you can refuse to supply the source.
> It says
> that you can refuse to supply the source FOR FREE.

Or refuse altogether.
The only thing the GPL really says is that I can't remove any freedom 
for any other user. Otherwise everybody running Nagios would have to 
supply means to distribute the source for it. That sort of scenario 
would seriously impede the free software movement by the simple 
expedient of adding obligations to the freedom (thus making freedom less 
free).

> Think upon the difference between the two.  Note also that it says "if someone pays
> your fee."  It does not say "if you CHOOSE to make the source available
> for a fee and somebody pays it."  Not making the source available is NOT
> an option, as the other FAQ questions make clear.

Quit being such a child.

> The source MUST be
> available if you distribute the code, or a modified version of it,
> outside your own organization.

No. Sources must be available to all those I distribute the program in 
any form to. Noone else, actually, and I'm not allowed to charge extra 
for them receiving the sources (we've had lawyers beating this inside 
out, and that's what they concluded although anyone with a brain not the 
size of a peanut can see so much).

>  The only choice you have in the matter is
> whether you charge a fee for the source or not.

Bah. Silly, but I hereby announce that I will charge a fee of 100 000 
000 US dollars for downloading software from any of the various mirrors 
I have set up.

> To pre-empt you attempting to misinterpret other bits of the FAQ, I'll
> quote part of <URL: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >:
>   The Free Software Definition
> [...]
>   Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
>   distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
>   it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
>   * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>   * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
>   needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
>   this.
> [...]

You left out two points here, and one addendum a bit further down;
--[ snip ]---
     * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor 
(freedom 2).
     * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements 
to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access 
to the source code is a precondition for this.
--[ snip ]---

--[ snip ]---
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them 
privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they 
exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to 
notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
--[ snip ]---

Are you still insisting?


>    A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.

Which is why it's illegal to supply the program in any form without 
making sources available (since that would remove a freedom). It is 
still perfectly legal to never share the sources for anything.

> [...]
>   In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved
>   versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of
>   the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary
>   condition for free software.
> [...]
>   In the GNU project, we use ``copyleft'' to protect these freedoms
>   legally for everyone.
> Got it now?  The FSF/GNU/RMS philosophy of free software insists that
> source code be available 

if any form of the program is available

>and the way this is enforced is through the GPL,
> aka copyleft.

Bah. Copyleft is a mockery of copyright. There are several licenses that 
can be called copyleft (ASL, LGPL, BSD, ...).

> One of the purposes of the GPL is to ensure that source
> code IS available.

The ONLY purpose of the GPL is to ensure that no freedom is ever denied 
anybody who holds a copy of the program.

> No, that's probably not enough for you.  So from the copyleft page at
> <URL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html >:
>   Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software and
>   requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free
>   software as well.
>   The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public
>   domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and
>   their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows
>   uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software.
>   They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a
>   proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified
>   form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the
>   middleman has stripped it away.
>   In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to
>   redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off
>   the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have
>   freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we
> ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the
>   software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to
>   further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has
>   freedom.
> Do you still want to insist that people can refuse to make the source
> code available?

To everyone who hasn't received the program in any form; Yes.

> Will I have to paste half the gnu website here before
> you admit that you were totally, utterly WRONG on this point?

As long as I don't supply binaries I don't have to supply the source.
I have plenty of modified GPL'd programs. Go at me with every lawyer you 
find and try and wring them from me. I'll be happy to take you all on in 
court, and you'd make a complete fool out of yourself.

>  If you
> take GPL code and modify it and redistribute the modified program outside
> your own organization then that modified code is also covered by the GPL.
> Source code MUST be available for ALL GPL code.
> 

... to all those who have received the program in any form. Others will 
have to ask nicely.

>>> The right
>>> for the company to use even the unmodified code for any purpose is also
>>> void and the company may be sued simply for using the code at all.  A
>>> company might be stupid enough to try to withhold the source but 
>>> would be
>>> unlikely to continue along that path when faced with legal action by 
>>> GNU.
>>
>>
>> GNU is an operating system (Linux is the kernel, which is a quite 
>> separate thing).
> 
> 
> Sigh.  GNU was meant to be a re-implementation of Unix. It started with
> various utilities and ended up extending them and creating new ones.

An operating system is made up of utilities.

>  It
> never did come up with the planned kernel and Linux, using many GNU
> utilities, made Hurd development obsolete.

Wrong. It took me and many others several years to port the GNU utils to 
work with the linux kernel, and the hurd is still being developed.

> But the foundation stone in
> all this, and perhaps GNU's most important "product" is the GNU Public
> Licence. OK, technically the organization behind the GPL is the FSF, but
> I wanted to avoid confusing people like you by introducing unnecessary
> detail.

Funny. You know just as well as I do that I'm the only one that reads 
your tiresome posts (just like you're the only one who reads mine). You 
should also know very well that I'm perfectly aware of the difference.

--[ REALLY useless bitching removed ]---

> As is typical with you, having found what you mistakenly
> believed to be a major error in my post,

It was a major error. You were implying that people who download GPL'd 
software have to make it publicly available to anyone who asks (two 
posts later you admitted that it doesn't have to be for free and that 
would have made it a minor glitch).

--[ more really useless and bitter bitching removed ]---

> GNU/FSF/RMS/the neurones in RMS's skull WILL take action whenever they
> are informed of infringement.  They HAVE to.

So why don't you inform them that I'm sitting on a bunch of modified 
GPL'd programs which I have no intention of ever making publicly 
available, even if I was offered money to cover my expenses for doing so?
They'll laugh even harder than I am.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson
OP5 AB
+46 (0)733 709032
andreas.ericsson at op5.se


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
Nagios-users mailing list
Nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users
::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue. 
::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null