RE: [Swftools-common] question about the license for swf2jpeg

[ken.sturgis]

The quote you is taken slightly out of context. Specifically this is an answer to a question which I have included below.

 

>I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL,

>but I would like to use the same code in non-free programs.

> 

>>To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally

>>there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder

>>for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive

>> licenses at various times.

 

I think most people would agree that it is improper to sell something that they could get for free elsewhere is problematic.  Can one ethically sell sunshine?  This is a very narrow answer and assumes that free program and the non-free program are the same

 

However, I don’t think this in any way reflects on selling value-added versions of GPL release programs that you wrote.  For instance it would be perfectly ethical for the ‘creators’ of a GPL program to sell a value-added version of a program.  The most common value-adds would be a license for commercial use and enhanced support.  Which is not to say that in any way the creators of a GPL program should offer this service.

 

~Ken Sturgis

 

From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Alec Bennett
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 9:32 AM
To: address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Swftools-common] question about the license for swf2jpeg

 

My understanding, which of course could be way off base, is that the GPL is there to protect code from being incorporated into closed source systems, as opposed to simply using a GPL covered program as a component, which would still have easily viewable sourcecode (and the GPL license). For example there are countless commercial projects that package ffmpeg.exe with their projects. They don't take code from ffmpeg, they simply include the executable along with the GPL and easy instructions for seeing the sourcecode. To me this means the spirit of the GPL is preserved, which is that derivative works are still GPL'd.

As I say, I certainly might be off base here.

And I'm probably opening a big smelly can of worms here, but could someone explain this line of the GPL to me?

"To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted". How on earth is being paid for your work "ethically tainted"? I understand that releasing a non free program that someone else wrote is certainly tainted, but if you wrote it yourself and are offering it for a couple of bucks to support further development, in what possible way is that *ethically* tainted?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Chris Pugh <address@hidden> wrote:

Maybe reading this will help clarify matters for you?

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF

[ NB in particular, the section ' I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered
software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?', ]

That said, I've seen a fair number of programs released by a both
organisations  and individuals that take large liberty with not only
the GPL, but software released under it.  Only goes to show that there
are those out there whose lack of conscience is in indirect proportion
to their profit making ability!

HTH.

Regards,



Chris.

On 19 February 2010 04:17, Alec Bennett <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'm interested in distributing swf2jpeg with a closed source Windows program
> that I may possibly charge money for in the future. Is this allowed
> according to the license?
>
> I'd like to include the jpeg2swf.exe file. I won't be recompiling, just
> using the main distro version.
>
> I see in the FAQ "SWFTools is free of charge (donations are welcome,
> though), and is released under the GPL", but I saw elsewhere a mention that
> it can't be used in commercial software, so I just wanted to be sure.
>
> The FAQ mentioning the license is here:
>
> http://wiki.swftools.org/index.php/FAQ
>
> Thanks for any help, and thanks for the amazing utility, works flawlessly
> with my massive (1680x1024) jpegs.
>
>
>