"There are no royalties or other fees to be paid for use of software from GnuWin32. But you may not sell the binaries; if you wish to redistribute any of the programs, you must do so for free. If you develop programs using libraries from GnuWin32 you may sell these programs; in this case you might consider making a donation to the GnuWin32 project.
"Bundling GnuWin32 binaries with other software and distributing these as a single work, e.g. on a CD-ROM, is permitted. If you sell such a bundle, then the price should not be raised because of the GnuWin32 binaries and you must clearly document inside the bundle as well as on the website where the bundle is sold, the source of the binaries; on its website you must also provide in a clear way a link to the GnuWin32 site."
I don't see how this is acceptable for the GPL'd packages. The GPL prohibit additional restrictions beyond those it already imposes--this is why the original 4-clause BSD is incompatible with the GPL, for example.
From the GPL itself:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
And from the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html)
" Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
"Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary."
For other licenses (ie, the BSD-licensed packages) these provisions are probably acceptable--though they also mean these packages have extra restrictions and are therefore GPL-incompatble (ie, you can't use the GnuWin32 libarchive or zlib in a GPL'd program).
But for the GPL'd packages: is this a major GPL violation or am I misunderstanding something?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This is a comment as a fellow user, not as any sort of official representative of GnuWin32...
The license you're obligated to is the one actually distributed with the software. The text on some obscure (and probably outdated) webpage is not relevant unless the distributed license specifically refers to it or the licensee is forced to read/accept it. I only use a modest subset of GnuWin32, but I know of no packages that are actually distributed with other than a pure gpl (or possibly lgpl) license. If you have examples of GnuWin32 packages that obligate the user to the text on the web page, please offer them.
Since virtually all of the GnuWin32 software is derivative of gpl'd software, indeed, the gpl clause "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." compels GnuWin32 not to restrict users in the manner described on the web page. If this were original software, there might be a (remote) chance at it sticking and being legally defensible, but not for gpl derivative work.
I suspect the web page is an outdated relic, but I agree it causes confusion to those unlucky enough to stumble upon it, and should be updated. I didn't even know it existed until I read this thread.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2006-04-14
> Since virtually all of the GnuWin32 software is derivative of gpl'd software,
Is it? Glanicing at the "packages" page, I would say there are lots of non-GPL software there. Perhaps even a majority.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Forgive me - I should have said "all of the GnuWin32 software I've used is derivative of gpl'd software". This is a couple of dozen packages but nowhere near comprehensive.
I'm afraid I can't glance at the packages page and tell what is gpl and what isn't. Indeed, in a very small sampling of some older or obscure packages I found one public domain and one with no license information at all. There are numerous licenses listed on the project summary page, so I presume there are packages released under most of them.
Still, I have not found a package which is released under a "modified gpl" as described on the web site. They may be there, of course, but I have not happened upon them.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
IMO this is a major violation. It would be nice to get a comment from the GnuWin32 team themselves.
The libraries are already probably sold in many distros (there are freeware CDs, for example), and I don't see any way to win a lawsuit if they should suddenly wake up and seriously try this...
Maybe the license page is just a leftover from a time when they didn't understand some licenses (e.g. GPL) fully yet?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I noticed this clause on the license page:
"There are no royalties or other fees to be paid for use of software from GnuWin32. But you may not sell the binaries; if you wish to redistribute any of the programs, you must do so for free. If you develop programs using libraries from GnuWin32 you may sell these programs; in this case you might consider making a donation to the GnuWin32 project.
"Bundling GnuWin32 binaries with other software and distributing these as a single work, e.g. on a CD-ROM, is permitted. If you sell such a bundle, then the price should not be raised because of the GnuWin32 binaries and you must clearly document inside the bundle as well as on the website where the bundle is sold, the source of the binaries; on its website you must also provide in a clear way a link to the GnuWin32 site."
I don't see how this is acceptable for the GPL'd packages. The GPL prohibit additional restrictions beyond those it already imposes--this is why the original 4-clause BSD is incompatible with the GPL, for example.
From the GPL itself:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
And from the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html)
" Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
"Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary."
For other licenses (ie, the BSD-licensed packages) these provisions are probably acceptable--though they also mean these packages have extra restrictions and are therefore GPL-incompatble (ie, you can't use the GnuWin32 libarchive or zlib in a GPL'd program).
But for the GPL'd packages: is this a major GPL violation or am I misunderstanding something?
This is a comment as a fellow user, not as any sort of official representative of GnuWin32...
The license you're obligated to is the one actually distributed with the software. The text on some obscure (and probably outdated) webpage is not relevant unless the distributed license specifically refers to it or the licensee is forced to read/accept it. I only use a modest subset of GnuWin32, but I know of no packages that are actually distributed with other than a pure gpl (or possibly lgpl) license. If you have examples of GnuWin32 packages that obligate the user to the text on the web page, please offer them.
Since virtually all of the GnuWin32 software is derivative of gpl'd software, indeed, the gpl clause "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." compels GnuWin32 not to restrict users in the manner described on the web page. If this were original software, there might be a (remote) chance at it sticking and being legally defensible, but not for gpl derivative work.
I suspect the web page is an outdated relic, but I agree it causes confusion to those unlucky enough to stumble upon it, and should be updated. I didn't even know it existed until I read this thread.
> Since virtually all of the GnuWin32 software is derivative of gpl'd software,
Is it? Glanicing at the "packages" page, I would say there are lots of non-GPL software there. Perhaps even a majority.
Forgive me - I should have said "all of the GnuWin32 software I've used is derivative of gpl'd software". This is a couple of dozen packages but nowhere near comprehensive.
I'm afraid I can't glance at the packages page and tell what is gpl and what isn't. Indeed, in a very small sampling of some older or obscure packages I found one public domain and one with no license information at all. There are numerous licenses listed on the project summary page, so I presume there are packages released under most of them.
Still, I have not found a package which is released under a "modified gpl" as described on the web site. They may be there, of course, but I have not happened upon them.
i kinda want an answer on this myself... anyone have any ideas?
IMO this is a major violation. It would be nice to get a comment from the GnuWin32 team themselves.
The libraries are already probably sold in many distros (there are freeware CDs, for example), and I don't see any way to win a lawsuit if they should suddenly wake up and seriously try this...
Maybe the license page is just a leftover from a time when they didn't understand some licenses (e.g. GPL) fully yet?