shareware GPL ? what the .... ?

[dragongodz]

i noticed on MajorGeeks a couple of days ago there was a program(so i thought) released called "dvd master backup" released and just $7 shareware. hmm ok so i went and had a look. hmm theres the source code for download aswell and it says it is GPL. hang on then how is it shareware ?

for the record the GPL states "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." etc thats means you can charge for sending it etc but at no point does it say you can sell the program.

hmm ok maybe its just bad wording then. hmm maybe not, i quote from the "shareware_license.txt" that comes with it "You are hereby granted a license to use DVDMB on an evaluation basis for a period of 30 days from the date of acquisition. If you like and wish to use DVDMB after this period has expired, you must register it." WHAT THE.....????

now if thats not bad enough lets have a look at whats in the drawer it installed to- avi2mpeg2_vfw.exe, avimux_gui.exe, m2apx3g.exe, bbmpeg.dll, lame_enc.dll - all GPL from memory but the sources are NOT in the source on that site. also there are more including besweet.exe which is not opensource and i remember Dspguru said ina thread somewhere that use of it requires his permission(so i will message him this thread so he can say if he gave it or not).

the point is this person(?) is trying to sell all this as shareware. clear violation of GPLand if Dspguru didnt give permission then violation of copyright aswell. i will of course be amailing this person so i will update this if i get a response.

anyone seen this type of thing before or is this a first ?

_http://dvdmb.maxitel.net/

[DSPguru]

he never got (or even asked for) my permission !!!

obviously, i wouldn't give my permission to this kind of tool.
a quote from BeSweet's readme file:

Distribution
------------
- You may not distribute BeSweet without having an explicit permission from me.
the author never contacted me
- Usually i would almost automaticly agree for developers to include BeSweet in their packages if the following exists :
-- The whole BeSweet package is included. (including all licensing textfiles)
the whole BeSweet package is NOT included, not to mention the licensing files, or even BeSweet's readme file
-- BeSweet version is a release and not a beta.
v1.4 stable. okay
-- The program is a freeware and not commercial in any mean.
sharewares can not include BeSweet
-- There's an active link to my website, so that users can download the latest releases.
there isn't

[dragongodz]

well its nearly 2 weeks since i sent the guy an email and no reply.

they have added a link for the source to the included programs now so i asume they did get my message.

have they contacted you DSPGuru though for your permission ? i doubt it since you said you wouldnt give this type of thing permission anyway. may be time for an email from you to them.

[DSPguru]

no1 contacted me.
and i'm not going to email them. i'll think of something..

[ChristianHJW]

... this guy should be happy he didnt start a forum or mailing list of his own on his site, it would be big fun flaming him to death :D ....

[Nic]

It's actually quite an interesting point...

(If you ignore the fact he's distributed BeSweet, which is bad)

Because he could say you have to register to remove the 30 day limitation...and there is nothing in the GPL to say that the software can't expire.

Because he releases all the source code there is nothing to stop us from getting, compiling it without the expiration and then releasing it for free (even though it does say were not allowed to in his "shareware license" but that's null and void).

But for people that just want the binary and dont have the tools to compile the source, they may just spend the $7.

"Is he really breaking the GPL?" is an interesting question...(well I thought it was ;) )

-Nic

[Hiro2k]

@Nic

Well he is still breaking the agreement that is included in Besweet. But I see what your saying about him not breaking the GPL, and it's a good point. We should clear this up some more.

[dragongodz]

hmm well i would still say he is breaking the GPL.

he includes a shareware document stating you MUST pay for it if you use his binaries after 30 days. therefore he is trying to make the average person who either can not or doesnt want to compile it himself pay for the program. that makes his binaries shareware/commercial which is against the GPL.

he also includes a timer saying how many days left you can use it for. i didnt roll my clock forward to see what happens after that time but even if it just pops up a message saying you must pay that would just re-enforce that he is selling the binaries.

[stickboy]

Originally posted by dragongodz
... it says it is GPL. hang on then how is it shareware ?

for the record the GPL states "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." etc thats means you can charge for sending it etc but at no point does it say you can sell the program.FWIW, on its own this is not a violation. The program author (or anyone else) has the right to sell their work however they see fit, even if their work is licensed under the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney).

The GPL is about free as in free speech (libre), not free as in free beer (gratis).but the sources are NOT in the source on that site.Also not a GPL violation. The sources must be made available if a request is made by someone who has the binary. Most of the time, the source accompanies the binary for convenience.

[Doom9]

@dragongodz: I know you won't like to hear that but DVDx was quite similar for a while. The only download location was dvlab, where you could only download if you had a paying access. I'm not sure but there might even have been a clause about redistribution despite the GPL. So, few people not scared by that actually sent me the latest binaries and sources and I made them available for free (at my cost.. the bandwith consumption was considerable.. mainly because the official homepage would not provide downloads unless you paid).

It is certainly an interesting interpretation of the GPL, but if the sources are provided upon request I think there's no violation, and somebody should take the sources and release an unlimited build.

[Nic]

As far as I can tell, the source is there in that zip on his webpage. It's only small (around about 4 c files).

The interesting thing is, that with a quick flick thru, it seems he is not using any GPL source in his code, just binaries of GPL programs. So he could probably close his source code altogether.

But anyway, the program is very cr*p. And doesn't nearly deserve this attention. But it is an interesting point :)

-Nic

[dragongodz]

ok where to start....

Doom9 - download of DVDx was not always for a charge as you already know. it only became so when the server company wanted extra money because of the amount of bandwidth DVDx downloads caused. this is allowed under the GPL. plus i have never found it hard to find DVDx on other sites within a week of release and since DVDx 2.1 and on have been on sourceforge aswell that also makes any difficulty getting it non existant. also we had a big discussion about distribution a long time ago when jim asked you to delay releasing it here. i backed you up remember and said you had every right to make it available for download so that is really a mute point. there has never been any clause saying anybody could not distribute DVDx either for the record.

stickyboy - this is a tougher part but maybe this will explain what i mean.
*"Strictly speaking, ``selling'' means trading goods for money. Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it.
However, when people think of ``selling software'', they usually imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the software proprietary rather than free.
So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way this article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term ``selling software'' and choose some other wording instead. For example, you could say ``distributing free software for a fee''--that is unambiguous."*
*"Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so."*
and
*"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License"*
so adding a shareware license on top of GPL would not be sublicensing ? also with the timer in the program saying how long you have left before you must pay the original person seems to conflict with the above.

Doom9 and stickyboy - "but if the sources are provided upon request"
we also discussed this at one point when i said maybe it would be better if DVDx source was only provided on request. you advised against trying that because of this (part b to be exact) -
*"You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"*

if you check back i was saying that the sources to the other GPL programs he includes/uses are not available in the source code download he provided, just his source. since he is distributing the binaries of other GPL programs he has to do 1 of the above. until after i sent the email there was no source code to the other programs, no offer of source on request valid for 3 years, not even a link to the original sites(or others) that have/had the source. again, he has only made the source available after my email so consider that before taking what i said originally out of context.

well anyway as Nic said this doesnt really deserve the attention but indeed it interesting to see how the GPL and copyright(besweet) becomes unimportant or interpretted differently when its not a well known/big distribution program. i wont be bothering to reply anymore to this.