* Wrote about business model and compliance chapter
(section{GPL \S 3: Producing Binaries}): Fixed typo. (chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}): Wrote chapter.
This commit is contained in:
parent
39390252fc
commit
9a799821ef
1 changed files with 115 additions and 12 deletions
127
gpl-lgpl.tex
127
gpl-lgpl.tex
|
@ -928,14 +928,14 @@ of GPL'ed binaries (which comes with corresponding source, of course), you
|
|||
have the freedom to redistribute that work at any fee you choose, or not
|
||||
at all. Sometimes, companies attempt to build a racket by producing very
|
||||
specialized binaries (perhaps for an obscure architecture), and then
|
||||
giving source code that does corresponding, but not giving the
|
||||
giving source code that does correspond, but not giving the
|
||||
``incantations'' and build plans they used to make that source compile
|
||||
into the specialized binaries. Therefore, \S 3 that the source code
|
||||
include ``meta-material'' like scripts, interface definitions, and other material
|
||||
that is used to ``control compilation and installation'' of the binaries.
|
||||
In this manner, those further down the distribution chain are assured that
|
||||
they have the unabated freedom to build their own derivative works from
|
||||
the sources provided.
|
||||
include ``meta-material'' like scripts, interface definitions, and other
|
||||
material that is used to ``control compilation and installation'' of the
|
||||
binaries. In this manner, those further down the distribution chain are
|
||||
assured that they have the unabated freedom to build their own derivative
|
||||
works from the sources provided.
|
||||
|
||||
FSF (as authors of GPL) realizes that software distribution comes in many
|
||||
forms. Embedded manufacturers, for example, have the freedom to put
|
||||
|
@ -1280,7 +1280,7 @@ Finally, one important point to remember when reading \S 11 is that \S 1
|
|||
permits the sale of warranty as an additional service, which \S 11
|
||||
affirms.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{GPL, \S 12}
|
||||
\section{GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability}
|
||||
\label{GPLs12}
|
||||
|
||||
There are many types of warranties, and in some jurisdictions some of them
|
||||
|
@ -1296,22 +1296,124 @@ So ends the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.
|
|||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Using Free Software In-House}
|
||||
Since GPL'ed software is now extremely prevalent through the industry, it
|
||||
is useful to has some basic knowledge about using GPL'ed software in
|
||||
business and how to build business models around GPL'ed software.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Using GPL'ed Software In-House}
|
||||
|
||||
A discussed in Sections~\ref{GPLs0} and~\ref{GPLs5} of this tutorial, the
|
||||
GPL only governs the activities of copying, modifying and distributing the
|
||||
software are not governed by the license. Thus, in FSF's view, simply
|
||||
installing the software on a machine and using it is not controlled or
|
||||
limited in any way by GPL\@. Using Free Software in general requires
|
||||
substantially fewer agreements and less license compliance activity than
|
||||
any known proprietary software.
|
||||
|
||||
Even if a company engages heavily in copying the software throughout the
|
||||
enterprise, such copying is not only permitted by \S\S 1 and 3, but it is
|
||||
encouraged! If the company simply deploy unmodified (or even modified)
|
||||
Free Software throughout the organization for its employees to use, the
|
||||
obligations under the license are very minimal. Using Free Software has a
|
||||
substantially lower cost of ownership --- both in licensing fees and in
|
||||
licensing checking and handling -- than the proprietary software
|
||||
equivalents.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Business Models}
|
||||
\label{Business Models}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Redistribution Sales}
|
||||
Using Free Software in house is certainly helpful, but there is also a
|
||||
thriving market for Free Software-oriented business models. There is the
|
||||
traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions. Many
|
||||
companies, including IBM and Red Hat, make substantial revenue from this
|
||||
model. IBM primarily chooses this model because they have found that for
|
||||
higher-end hardware, the cost of the profit made from proprietary software
|
||||
licensing fees is negligible. The real profit is in the hardware, but it is
|
||||
essential that software be stable, reliable and dependable, and the users
|
||||
be allowed to have unfettered access to it. Free Software, and GPL'ed
|
||||
software in particular (because IBM can be assured that proprietary
|
||||
versions of the same software will not exists to compete on their
|
||||
hardware) is the right choice.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Custom Modification on Contract}
|
||||
|
||||
Red Hat has actually found that a ``convenience fee'' for Free Software,
|
||||
when set at a reasonable price (around \$60 or so), can produce some
|
||||
profit. Even though Red Hat's system is fully downloadable on their
|
||||
website, people still go to local computer stores and buy copies of their
|
||||
box set, which is simply a printed version of the manual (available under
|
||||
a free license as well) and the Free Software system it documents.
|
||||
|
||||
\medskip
|
||||
|
||||
However, custom support, service, and software improvement contracts are
|
||||
the most widely used models for GPL'ed software. The GPL is central to
|
||||
their success, because it ensure that the code base remains common, and
|
||||
that large and small companies are on equal footing for access to the
|
||||
technology. Consider, for example, the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC).
|
||||
Cygnus Solutions, a company started in the early 1990s, was able to grow
|
||||
steadily simply by providing services for GCC --- mostly consisting of
|
||||
porting GCC to new embedded chipset target platforms. Eventually, Cygnus
|
||||
was so successful that it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a
|
||||
profitable division.
|
||||
|
||||
However, there are very small companies like CodeSourcery, as well as
|
||||
other medium sized companies like MontaVista and OpenTV that compete in
|
||||
this space. Because the code-base is protect by GPL, it creates and
|
||||
demands industry trust. Companies can cooperate on the software and
|
||||
improve it for everyone. Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their
|
||||
work are happy to pay for improvements, and for ports to new target
|
||||
platforms, and nearly all the changes fold back into the standard
|
||||
versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.
|
||||
|
||||
\medskip
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Proprietary Relicensing}
|
||||
\label{Proprietary Relicensing}
|
||||
|
||||
A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is
|
||||
proprietary relicensing of a GPL'ed code base. This is only an option for
|
||||
software in which a particular entity is the sole copyright holder. As
|
||||
discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is permitted under
|
||||
copyright law to license a software system under her copyright as many
|
||||
different ways as she likes to as many different parties as she wishes.
|
||||
|
||||
Some companies, such as MySQL AB and TrollTech, use this to their
|
||||
financial advantage with regard to a GPL'ed code base. The standard
|
||||
version is available from the company under the terms of the GPL\@.
|
||||
However, parties can purchase separate proprietary software licensing for
|
||||
a fee.
|
||||
|
||||
This business model is problematic because it means that the GPL'ed code
|
||||
base must be developed in a somewhat monolithic way, because volunteer
|
||||
Free Software developers may be reluctant to assign their copyrights to
|
||||
the company because it will not promise to always and forever license the
|
||||
software as Free Software. Indeed, the company will surely use such code
|
||||
contributions in proprietary versions licensed for fees.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Ongoing Compliance}
|
||||
|
||||
GPL compliance is in fact a very simple matter -- much simpler than
|
||||
typical proprietary software agreements and EULAs. Usually, the most
|
||||
difficult hurdle is changing from a proprietary software mindset to one
|
||||
that seeks to foster a community of sharing and mutual support. Certainly
|
||||
complying with the GPL from a users' perspective gives substantially fewer
|
||||
headaches than proprietary license compliance.
|
||||
|
||||
For those who go into the business of distributing or distributing
|
||||
modified versions of GPL'ed software, the burden is a bit higher, but not
|
||||
by much. The glib answer that is that it is always easy to comply with
|
||||
the GPL by releasing the whole product as Free Software. However,
|
||||
admittedly to the chagrin of FSF, many modern and complex software systems
|
||||
are built using both proprietary and GPL'ed components that are not
|
||||
legally derivative works of each other. Usually, in product development
|
||||
with Free Software tools, sometimes it is easier simply to improve
|
||||
existing GPL'ed application than to start from scratch. In exchange for
|
||||
that benefit, the license requires that the modifier give back to the
|
||||
commons that made the work easier. It is a reasonable trade-off, and it
|
||||
is a way to help build a better world while also making a profit.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that FSF does provide services to assist companies who need
|
||||
assistance in complying with the GPL. You can contact FSF's GPL
|
||||
Compliance Labs at <compliance@fsf.org>.
|
||||
|
||||
\appendix
|
||||
|
||||
\chapter{The GNU General Public License}
|
||||
|
@ -1736,3 +1838,4 @@ General Public License instead of this License.
|
|||
% LocalWords: proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs
|
||||
% LocalWords: Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs
|
||||
% LocalWords: Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre PDAs CDs reshifts GPL's Gentoo
|
||||
% LocalWords: TrollTech
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue