Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday June 08 2015, @03:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the mix-and-match dept.

I have been watching the evolution of the Ubuntu Software Center for quite a while now. I had doubts about its interface and its speed, but I liked the fact that it offered an easy, down-to-earth interface that allowed users to install software easily. However, I have to say that the way the Ubuntu Software Center has evolved is worrying me -- a lot. I am not against the idea of selling software. What I am against, is confusing proprietary software with non-proprietary software, The Ubuntu Software Center seems to be doing just that.


[ Editor's Note: The submission appears to have come directly from the author of the original article. ]
Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @06:40AM

    by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Monday June 08 2015, @06:40AM (#193541) Homepage Journal

    If I were to write a program in C under Linux using GCC would I be able to sell binaries and not give out the source?

    --
    jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=2, Interesting=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @06:59AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @06:59AM (#193542)

    If I were to write a program in C under Linux using GCC would I be able to sell binaries and not give out the source?

    Yes. Just like thousands of games on Steam are doing right now, like Loki Games did 15 years ago.

    Wait, why is it that all the examples I can find are games, and all I can come up with in the "non-games" section is the port of Word Perfect that existed for a short time a loooong time ago? You'd think Linux was a gaming OS.

    • (Score: 2) by TLA on Monday June 08 2015, @07:15AM

      by TLA (5128) on Monday June 08 2015, @07:15AM (#193550) Journal

      why would you go anywhere near that crapfest that is Steam?? Particularly with that malware magnet Source.

      --
      Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @08:46AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @08:46AM (#193574)

      Every serious developer will use a better compiler.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @10:25AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @10:25AM (#193593)

        Lots of serious developers use GCC. How is it that you've determined that there are no "serious" developers who use it?

  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by TLA on Monday June 08 2015, @06:59AM

    by TLA (5128) on Monday June 08 2015, @06:59AM (#193543) Journal

    No [gnu.org]. Is the short answer. You must distribute the source whether or not you also distribute the binary.

    --
    Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
    • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @08:04AM

      by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Monday June 08 2015, @08:04AM (#193562) Homepage Journal

      Can I release a modified version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only? (#ModifiedJustBinary)
      No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software—which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.

      I think we are having a failure to communicate. I am asking if I write my own hello world program in C with whatever new idea also, and compile it under Linux using GCC can I sell the binary and not give out the source?

      --
      jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
      • (Score: 2) by TLA on Monday June 08 2015, @12:59PM

        by TLA (5128) on Monday June 08 2015, @12:59PM (#193620) Journal

        my bad, it was Dark O'Clock and I was misreading due exhaustion.

        --
        Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
    • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday June 08 2015, @08:11AM

      by TheRaven (270) on Monday June 08 2015, @08:11AM (#193564) Journal
      Wrong. The GCC license include an explicit run-time exemption. You are free to distribute the run-time components of GCC (any code that the compiler generates that inserts code that is part of the compiler, and anything like the softfloat emulation routines) in a binary under any license. The page you link to would only be relevant if he were asking if he could distribute a modified GCC binary only.
      --
      sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday June 08 2015, @08:17AM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Monday June 08 2015, @08:17AM (#193566) Journal

      Well first, C is just a language so it's use neither here nor there with respect to the GPL. Your own C code can be closed, open, or whatever you choose.

      As for GCC, it's not quite so cut and dried as you make it sound: http://www.sitepoint.com/public-license-explained/ [sitepoint.com] (nice link from the comments here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2080588/can-i-legally-incorporate-gpl-software-in-a-proprietary-closed-source-web-app [stackoverflow.com] ) The discussion here is good too: https://lwn.net/Articles/583622/ [lwn.net] You do have to be careful however, not to integrate GPL software into your program when using GCC (LGPL however solves the problem and does not invoke the GPL).

      Finally, you only have to release the source IF you distribute the code. If you make some changes to GPL'ed software and never distribute that software, you can keep those changes to yourself for all eternity.

      Going back to GCC, imagine you wrote a novel using emacs -- do you really think that would mean you have to release the book free because of emacs? How about movie special effects done in Blender? It's GPL'ed -- did we all get free Spiderman-2 tickets?

  • (Score: 1) by Shimitar on Monday June 08 2015, @08:26AM

    by Shimitar (4208) on Monday June 08 2015, @08:26AM (#193572) Homepage

    The Short Answer: YES

    The Not So Short Answer:
    Let's not get confused. The GPL license applies to software you either include in your own or modify, it does not apply to by-products of it's usage. So, yes, you can use the GCC compiler (which is GPLv3) to produce proprietary, closed-source software you want to sell or monetize in any way you want.

    What you CANNOT do is modify GCC and sell it without providing your modification...
    What you CANNOT do is link GPL-only libraries to your non-GPL sources...

    So, again, yes you can, provided you don't link any pure GPL library to it, which is not so hard since almost all the common used libraries on linux are LGPL, BSD or other non so strictly licensed. Yes, including glibc which is LGPL.

    GPL is aboud freedom and make sure that freedom cannot be removed at any point in time, just that.

    Think of it, it would be quite useless to have a GIMP which forces you to release ANY photo or draw you make as creative-commons or GPL, right? Likewhise, think a Calligra/KOffice word which forces you to release as GPL any book or article you write...

    Why should it be different for compiler output?

    --
    Coding is an art. No, java is not coding. Yes, i am biased, i know, sorry if this bothers you.
    • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @10:44AM

      by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Monday June 08 2015, @10:44AM (#193596) Homepage Journal

      Think of it, it would be quite useless to have a GIMP which forces you to release ANY photo or draw you make as creative-commons or GPL, right? Likewhise, think a Calligra/KOffice word which forces you to release as GPL any book or article you write...
      Why should it be different for compiler output?

      I am not a lawyer and they have ways to twist these things. I do not know the answer to your question, although thank you for your response.

      --
      jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
  • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @10:48AM

    by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Monday June 08 2015, @10:48AM (#193597) Homepage Journal

    How is this flaimbait? Nice modding.

    --
    jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Monday June 08 2015, @07:40PM

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 08 2015, @07:40PM (#193781) Journal

      Sorry I couldn't reply earlier, so I modded it flamebait, because I believe that's what it truly is. It's an impertinent question and disingenuous. In recent months and years these discussion forums seem to have been over-run by anti-GPL FUD and pro-BSD platitudes. Call it a conspiracy theory, but it might be that Apple, Microsoft, Google, Oracle and friends and having a paid troll/astroturfing campaign. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the Putinbots were in on it too.

      This sort of question smacks of willful ignorance, and it was discussed to death 20 years ago when Linux became very popular all of a sudden. You'd think with the popularity of FOSS these days most people would have a basic understanding.

      The FSF's web site, wikipedia and the OSI explain this clearly, at length and unambiguously.

      Looking further up this discussion there are all sorts of idiotic questions about licenses that are just plain insulting, like, "If I make modifications to a project under the GPL and redistribute it, can I redistribute it under a different licence?" Hell no, it's right there in the GPL, and you are supposed to state that in a comment block at the top of your source files.

      Let me give you an example (of the LGPL, the one that lets you write a Free library to be used by Closed applications by dynamic linking) from one of my own sources (the name has been changed to prevent embarrassment):

      /* frobnicator.h
        * This file is part of frobnicator
        *
        *  frobnicator is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
        *  under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published
        *  by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
        *  (at your option) any later version.
        *
        *  frobnicator is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
        *  ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
        *  FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU Lesser General Public
        *  License for more details.
        *
        *  You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
        *  License along with frobnicator; if not, write to the Free Software
        *  Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307
        *  USA
        */