Page 1 of 1
"A charge no more than your cost".....hmmm
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:08 am
by Rico777
"a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution"
Seems to me that leaves the floor pretty wide open. It does not say the cost of a blank CD and USPS postage to mail it. It says your cost of physically performing source distribution. So the developers "choice" of how to physically perform the source distribution could easily be calculated to an amount that would deter the request for the source code.
For example....if the developer only provides for his or her physically delivering the CD to the customer in person then you would have to figure travel costs.
Or even if we are talking about mailing it through the post office...lets run down a list of some of the cost of physically performing source distribution that most people might not think of.
1.) The retail price of the developers computer. You can't make a CD for someone without a computer and that is a valid cost...enough though it is one that probably has already be paid by the developer in advance, it is still a cost involved in providing the requested source code.
2.) The overhead cost of the developers home or office in which he or she has that computer also with the costs involved to provide electricity to power said computer.
3.) Mailing the the CD with the source would require a trip to a post office of the developers choice....this requires a car. So the retail price of the developers car would be a valid cost to comply with the request along with all other cost associated with allowing the developers to drive said car to the post office (i.e. insurance, tags, gas....ect.)
And the developer may decide to mail that from a post office several hundreds of miles away from his or her home. At today's gas prices that could get REAL expensive.
Now given some time I could come up with a longer list but you get my point.
I think if someone requests a copy of the source code and gets a quote for $50,000 to deliver it to them...they will most likely cancel the request. And if they don't and wish to pay $50,000 for it then give it to them and let them do what they want with it. Move on to the next project and contact that person again to see if they want to buy your new project as well....
Re: "A charge no more than your cost".....hmmm
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:31 pm
by Jenny
The cost of supplying the source code cannot exceed the cost of distribution of the software. At least that is my understanding of the issue.
Edit: Here is the link to the GNU where I think this applies.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... AllowMoney
Re: "A charge no more than your cost".....hmmm
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:30 am
by Aris Ntatsis
@ Rico777
I am afraid there is no court of law which will accept such an allegation...
Re: "A charge no more than your cost".....hmmm
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:58 pm
by Rico777
Just like there is no court of law that will tell a 3PD that he or she is required to put their work under a GPL liscense just because he made it possible for a GPL program to use it....
I was making a ridiculous response to a ridiculous arguement.
Re: "A charge no more than your cost".....hmmm
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:28 pm
by Jenny
The difference is there is a license that specifically outlines the conditions of what is and what is not GPL compatible. That is not a ridiculous argument. Courts do side with copyright holders when their rights are infringed upon. 3PDs don't make it so that a GPL program can use their extensions. They program then specifically so that they integrate their program into the GPL program (most do). That is why there is an issue. Make it stand alone and it most likely isn't an issue.
Yours was a ridiculous argument because it shows obvious intent to defraud people. No court in any land would rule in your favor in the face of such injustice as you were suggesting.
If you want to comment on the reality of the situation then do so. To continue on with the asinine comments and arguments doesn't do anyone any good, and most of all it makes you look foolish.
Re: "A charge no more than your cost".....hmmm
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:13 pm
by Rico777
The difference is there is a license that specifically outlines the conditions of what is and what is not GPL compatible. That is not a ridiculous argument. Courts do side with copyright holders when their rights are infringed upon. 3PDs don't make it so that a GPL program can use their extensions. They program then specifically so that they integrate their program into the GPL program (most do). That is why there is an issue. Make it stand alone and it most likely isn't an issue.
Your right, there is a license that specifically outlines the conditions of what is and what is not GPL compatible. The part of the argument that is ridiculous is when all these people come in here and want to completely ignore the parts that protects 3PD's.
If I create a shopping cart program and then create seperate bridges so that said program can be used in a more user friendly manner with Joomla, Drupla, as well as other CMS's I do not have to and will not put my shopping cart program out there under a GPL just because one of the bridges that I create is for Joomla.
If you want to comment on the reality of the situation then do so. To continue on with the asinine comments and arguments doesn't do anyone any good, and most of all it makes you look foolish.
I was not being "asinine" I was making a point. Usually when people resort to childish insults it is a sign that they know they don't have any solid facts to back up their side of the argument. As a moderator you should conduct yourself better.
Re: "A charge no more than your cost".....hmmm
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:11 pm
by mcsmom
want to completely ignore the parts that protects 3PD's.
There is absolutely no one doing that.
A very small group of 3PDs say that people are doing that, but that is something they are imagining; for whatever reason they think they, not the original copyright holders who freely contributed to a project under the terms of the gpl, are the potential victims. They seem not to comprehend the potential liability that they face by not complying. Fortunately for them, FSF never seeks monetary damages although the original copyright holders are of course free to do so individually or collectively.(
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance)
This group thinks that using various variations of "if you don't do what I want I'll leave" and "you need me more than I need you" is an effective business negotiation strategy. Unfortunately for them, this approach is not an effective strategy. All it does is burn bridges.
In the meantime there are many other developers who are taking different approaches, such as (a) changing licenses (b) changing business models and/or (c) developing a code-based model. In fact, I would from my reading and listening say that the marjority of third party developers are actually in this group. They like Joomla!; they want to stick with Joomla!; they are creative; they know how to cope with disagreements effectively.
Re: "A charge no more than your cost".....hmmm
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:20 pm
by Jenny
Your point was asinine. You specifically stated a scenario where you would be defrauding people intentionally. Scheming ways to get around a license's terms in a way that sets out intentionally to do harm to others is childish.
From your post you are projecting an image of 3PDs that wish to harm end users, and that wish to resort to highly unethical ways to get around having to comply with the licenses. As someone who is putting themselves out there as a 3PD you should conduct yourself in a more ethical manner. Or is that your intention- to promote for 3PDs to conduct themselves in highly unethical, and from your suggestion above most likely highly illegal ways?
Rico777 wrote:
"a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution"
Seems to me that leaves the floor pretty wide open. It does not say the cost of a blank CD and USPS postage to mail it. It says your cost of physically performing source distribution. So the developers "choice" of how to physically perform the source distribution could easily be calculated to an amount that would deter the request for the source code.
For example....if the developer only provides for his or her physically delivering the CD to the customer in person then you would have to figure travel costs.
Or even if we are talking about mailing it through the post office...lets run down a list of some of the cost of physically performing source distribution that most people might not think of.
1.) The retail price of the developers computer. You can't make a CD for someone without a computer and that is a valid cost...enough though it is one that probably has already be paid by the developer in advance, it is still a cost involved in providing the requested source code.
2.) The overhead cost of the developers home or office in which he or she has that computer also with the costs involved to provide electricity to power said computer.
3.) Mailing the the CD with the source would require a trip to a post office of the developers choice....this requires a car. So the retail price of the developers car would be a valid cost to comply with the request along with all other cost associated with allowing the developers to drive said car to the post office (i.e. insurance, tags, gas....ect.)
And the developer may decide to mail that from a post office several hundreds of miles away from his or her home. At today's gas prices that could get REAL expensive.
Now given some time I could come up with a longer list but you get my point.
I think if someone requests a copy of the source code and gets a quote for $50,000 to deliver it to them...they will most likely cancel the request. And if they don't and wish to pay $50,000 for it then give it to them and let them do what they want with it. Move on to the next project and contact that person again to see if they want to buy your new project as well....
Edit: Included copy of original post in case it was edited.
Re: "A charge no more than your cost".....hmmm
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:47 pm
by Rico777
Ok, first of all my scenario did not describe anything "illegal", "defrauding", "scheming" or anything to "intentionally to do harm to others". Now you are just making false claims against me. I'm sorry if you are so self centered and close minded that you jump to the defensive and resort to childish insults whenever someone has a view point that differs from your little world but that's life.
What I did was give an exagerated but legitimant scenario to illustrate the fact that 3PD's do what they do as a way to make a living. To pay their bills, put a roof over their head, feed their children...you know little luxuries like that. And thinking that you or anyone else has the right to tell them that they have to spend all their time programming tools and give them away for free or more directly to the point sell it once and allow anyone else to give it away free is just plain insane.
That's why the free extensions available for download are so buggy and why so many people out their are looking for and are willing to pay for something better.
I will continue to do what I do...you continue to sit in here and insult people and make false claims and twist what they say around if that makes you feel good about yourself. I for one do not have the time to continue trying to talk to someone who clearly needs to grow up.
Bottom line is if you or anyone else thinks that 3PD's are doing anything illegal you are wrong and I wish someone would please "try" to sue one of us. When you are laughed out of the court by the judge it will put an end to this ridiculous arguement.
Re: "A charge no more than your cost".....hmmm
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:56 pm
by Jenny
Hmmm, went from asinine to truly ridiculous.
Rico777 wrote:
That's why the free extensions available for download are so buggy and why so many people out their are looking for and are willing to pay for something better.
I think you just insulted almost the entire commercial extension developer community. Most them create free extensions. So if a developer's free extension is buggy, I would guess that no one should ever purchase any of their commercial extensions.
A thought to consider - I don't know of any extension, plugin, module or addon that doesn't have some sort of bug. Do you?
Edit: I wanted to add that the scenario you posted would most definitely fall under most Consumer Fraud, Discriminatory Rate and Deceptive Business Practice laws, at least here in most US States. Especially because the GPL specifically states the words "reasonable". Your scenario above would not by any stretch pass the test of "reasonable".
Re: "A charge no more than your cost".....hmmm
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:28 pm
by Rico777
I will continue to do what I do...you continue to sit in here and insult people and make false claims and twist what they say around if that makes you feel good about yourself. I for one do not have the time to continue trying to talk to someone who clearly needs to grow up.
So I guess continueing to sit in here and insult people, make false claims and twist what they say around DOES give you some purpose in life....ok gook luck with that. I'm going to get back to coding now...I will pray for you.
Re: "A charge no more than your cost".....hmmm
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:31 am
by technopuzzle
MOD NOTE: Locking thread - as it has become uncivil and both sides of the discussion have resorted to being insulting and rude to the other side.