15 ms·

There's nothing about the GPL that says you can't sell your product. I wish this tired GPL counterpoint would be put to rest. If you provide the source code fo

There's nothing about the GPL that says you can't sell your product. I wish this tired GPL counterpoint would be put to rest. If you provide the source code for your software, someone else will compile it and distribute a binary legally and for free. That -- without any shadow of a doubt -- hurts sales (even if you "highly doubt it"). RedHat sells services, not software. That's why they can afford for CentOS to keep doing what they do.

DarkShikari 17y ago
I wish this tired GPL counterpoint would be put to rest. If you provide the source code for your software, someone else will compile it and distribute a binary legally and for free. My entire point is that this isn't true. The aforementioned game released its source code--and nobody cared. The GPL applies to code only--nothing else. If a game's source code is GPL, that doesn't give anyone permission to legally distribute the game--all the art and assets are still not GPL'd, only the binaries are. I don't see how one could possibly sanely think that I would find a copy of, say, Civilization 4 without models, textures, and sound to be useful. And companies vastly overvalue their source code. They assume that since they spent $1m developing something that the source is worth $1m, when in reality there's probably nobody in the world who would pay a cent for their crappy code.
- antonovka 17y ago
  I don't see how one could possibly sanely think that I would find a copy of, say, Civilization 4 without models, textures, and sound to be useful. Are you serious? It's a drop-in game engine. You could create a variation on Civilization 4 for the cost of your artists.
  - Sandman 17y ago
    And you'd have to release it under that same license (or a GPL compliant license), which means that anybody can do the same thing to you. If you improved the engine in some way, there's nothing stopping the makers of the original game to take your improved version, bundle some resources with it (sound, graphics) and release a new and improved version of their game.
    - antonovka 17y ago
      Which means that the original corporation won't participate (unless forced to by accidentally including GPL'd code) because there are a lot of very good reasons for a corporation to not share their source code (ie, competitive advantage), and we've come full circle.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I think the point is that engines are a commodity, artwork and game logic, motion capture & sound effects are not.
Zev 17y ago
I wish this tired GPL counterpoint would be put to rest. If you provide the source code for your software, someone else will compile it and distribute a binary legally and for free. FWIW, I contribute to an app that has been on the App Store for ~10 months now, been in the top 100 for its category since release and is open source (under a BSD license). We've had several people tell us that someone could do this very thing - compile the app and post it online for free - but it hasn't been done yet. Of course, the app has been cracked and placed on other sites (and its technically legal since binary modifications/redistributions are allowed). But thats a different issue.
- antonovka 17y ago
  FWIW, I contribute to an app that has been on the App Store for ~10 months now, been in the top 100 for its category since release and is open source (under a BSD license). We've had several people tell us that someone could do this very thing - compile the app and post it online for free - but it hasn't been done yet. That would be because: - The copied app (unlike on the free internet) couldn't be called "Colloquy" (or reference Colloquy in its tags) because Apple would forbid its distribution, and so discoverability is significantly reduced. - It costs $99 to acquire an appstore developer certificate to work with Apple's DRM, reducing the chances of opportunistic behavior on behalf of users. I can't just check out your project and put it online. Of course, the app has been cracked and placed on other sites (and its technically legal since binary modifications/redistributions are allowed). But thats a different issue. Is it really a different issue? It seems like the only thing protecting you from unrestricted copying is Apple's DRM and control over the AppStore.
  - Zev 17y ago
    The copied app (unlike on the free internet) couldn't be called "Colloquy" (or reference Colloquy in its tags) because Apple would forbid its distribution, and so discoverability is significantly reduced. Sadly, not completely true. It couldn't be called colloquy, but the I last time I looked (admittedly, a month or two ago,) two of the competing IRC clients in the app store mention Colloquy by name in their description and one of them also has "Colloquy" as one of their search terms. Is it really a different issue? It seems like the only thing protecting you from unrestricted copying is Apple's DRM and control over the AppStore. I don't see the difference between Apple creating some semblance of DRM in the app and developers having to do so on their own. A cracked app is a cracked app, regardless of the protection that was cracked. One of the things that I love about the App Store is that I don't have to deal with keeping track serials. I buy the app, and it just works. If (when?) Apple were to allow people to put apps on their device without going through the App Store, serials may then become an issue.

DarkShikari 17y ago

I wish this tired GPL counterpoint would be put to rest. If you provide the source code for your software, someone else will compile it and distribute a binary legally and for free. My entire point is that this isn't true. The aforementioned game released its source code--and nobody cared. The GPL applies to code only--nothing else. If a game's source code is GPL, that doesn't give anyone permission to legally distribute the game--all the art and assets are still not GPL'd, only the binaries are. I don't see how one could possibly sanely think that I would find a copy of, say, Civilization 4 without models, textures, and sound to be useful. And companies vastly overvalue their source code. They assume that since they spent $1m developing something that the source is worth $1m, when in reality there's probably nobody in the world who would pay a cent for their crappy code.

antonovka 17y ago
I don't see how one could possibly sanely think that I would find a copy of, say, Civilization 4 without models, textures, and sound to be useful. Are you serious? It's a drop-in game engine. You could create a variation on Civilization 4 for the cost of your artists.
- Sandman 17y ago
  And you'd have to release it under that same license (or a GPL compliant license), which means that anybody can do the same thing to you. If you improved the engine in some way, there's nothing stopping the makers of the original game to take your improved version, bundle some resources with it (sound, graphics) and release a new and improved version of their game.
  - antonovka 17y ago
    Which means that the original corporation won't participate (unless forced to by accidentally including GPL'd code) because there are a lot of very good reasons for a corporation to not share their source code (ie, competitive advantage), and we've come full circle.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I think the point is that engines are a commodity, artwork and game logic, motion capture & sound effects are not.

Zev 17y ago

I wish this tired GPL counterpoint would be put to rest. If you provide the source code for your software, someone else will compile it and distribute a binary legally and for free. FWIW, I contribute to an app that has been on the App Store for ~10 months now, been in the top 100 for its category since release and is open source (under a BSD license). We've had several people tell us that someone could do this very thing - compile the app and post it online for free - but it hasn't been done yet. Of course, the app has been cracked and placed on other sites (and its technically legal since binary modifications/redistributions are allowed). But thats a different issue.

antonovka 17y ago
FWIW, I contribute to an app that has been on the App Store for ~10 months now, been in the top 100 for its category since release and is open source (under a BSD license). We've had several people tell us that someone could do this very thing - compile the app and post it online for free - but it hasn't been done yet. That would be because: - The copied app (unlike on the free internet) couldn't be called "Colloquy" (or reference Colloquy in its tags) because Apple would forbid its distribution, and so discoverability is significantly reduced. - It costs $99 to acquire an appstore developer certificate to work with Apple's DRM, reducing the chances of opportunistic behavior on behalf of users. I can't just check out your project and put it online. Of course, the app has been cracked and placed on other sites (and its technically legal since binary modifications/redistributions are allowed). But thats a different issue. Is it really a different issue? It seems like the only thing protecting you from unrestricted copying is Apple's DRM and control over the AppStore.
- Zev 17y ago
  The copied app (unlike on the free internet) couldn't be called "Colloquy" (or reference Colloquy in its tags) because Apple would forbid its distribution, and so discoverability is significantly reduced. Sadly, not completely true. It couldn't be called colloquy, but the I last time I looked (admittedly, a month or two ago,) two of the competing IRC clients in the app store mention Colloquy by name in their description and one of them also has "Colloquy" as one of their search terms. Is it really a different issue? It seems like the only thing protecting you from unrestricted copying is Apple's DRM and control over the AppStore. I don't see the difference between Apple creating some semblance of DRM in the app and developers having to do so on their own. A cracked app is a cracked app, regardless of the protection that was cracked. One of the things that I love about the App Store is that I don't have to deal with keeping track serials. I buy the app, and it just works. If (when?) Apple were to allow people to put apps on their device without going through the App Store, serials may then become an issue.