GPL and Paid Download

[makco]

Hi,
I hope this is the right place to post this question.

I don't understand something about JED. There are some extensions that are not free, as matter of fact they have "Paid Download" specified, but the license is still GPL 2 (usually).

My question is: if the license is GPL 2, there should be an open source version too, and not only the paid one? What am I missing?

Thanks,
Marco

[Webdongle]

The code is open source, the charges are for their time to create it. Anyone is free to use their code in part or in full. They are selling their services i.e. their creation of the code not the code itself. There is no restriction on the use of the code.

[SharkyKZ]

You should read the license https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.php. Distributing software freely, whether for free or for a fee, is one of the freedoms provided by GPL. You could actually acquire a copy of the software and then start selling it yourself or giving it away for free.

[makco]

Thank you both, I think I'm starting to understand... maybe...
The software distributed with GPL 2 license must be open, but you may sell it, it's not mandatory that you have a free download somewhere, beside selling it (that what I was getting wrong).

Thanks, now I try to read the license SharkyKZ have linked, even if I'm not so good to understand legalese in english ) and I'm not sure I will...

Thanks again!
m.

P.s. Clearly it's perfectly fine for me that who create software can be paid... actually it should be paid!
I'm just trying to understand what it is implied when I read GPL... and if I create a free project where should I look into, to find software free and open.

[webgobe]

GPL does not mean, that you can get the software for free automatically. Some are available for free, indeed, but some can came with a price tag. Open Source (and GPL 2 - which is an Open Source licensing model) means, that you can freely use the given software to whatever purpose you need, modify it, redistribute it with respecting the legal conditions as described in the license. Too little space there to describe every implication of a GPL license, but for example you can't take a GPL-2 licensed software and to distribute as being yours - you must retain the original credits. Naturally you can add your credits too, if you added something to it. The software created and distributed under GPL - 2 remains the intellectual property of it's original creator - and of those who ALSO contributed to it.
So, to be clear, Open Source does NOT mean, that you can't be charged to have it. As pointed above, you can still be charged for SERVICES - like support, upgrades for a given period, consultancy, etc. The fact, that you have been charged for such a software package does not mean, that you became the owner of the package - you are charged for those additional things, and you will be entitled to those extras as above.

[makco]

Thanks webgobe, much clearer to me now.
I use to think that to be open source, you needed to provide a free download of the sources... without paying them... instead it's not You may decide a price, even if the sources are open...

Thank you so much!
m.

[Webdongle]

It took me a long while to understand that Open Source is not Freeware. I still don't understand Open Source fully myself.

[AMurray]

I take open source to not only mean literally readable source code but the free distribution of the product and be free to modify it into another product. A good example is Mambo, which was open source; Joomla is the modern result of a fork from Mambo.

Comparatively I've never seen any equivalent or "fork" of Wordpress....so would that be "closed" source?

[mandville]

Comparatively I've never seen any equivalent or "fork" of Wordpress....so would that be "closed" source?

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... press+fork there have been some