Re: Confused about LGPL terms - can you help?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   It has everything to do with semantics. You knew that my commercial
   I was referring to closed source. The original poster asked about
   the use of LGPL with closed source software.

The OP and you talked about commercial software, commercial software
is not the same as non-free software (or closed source software for
that matter).  There is nothing semantic about this, they are two (or
three) completely different words with completely different meanings.

   >   So to say that GPL software can be used commercially in the
   >   same mode as traditional closed source commercial software is
   >   disingenuous.

   >Much if not all (I do not keep track which program subjugates
   >which of your or my freedoms) non-free software cannot be used
   >commercially, you cannot charge a fee for the act of distributing
   >Windows, which is a non-free program for example.  Again, this has
   >nothing to do with semantics, but about basic rights of a computer
   >user.

   Once again, Microsoft as the owner of Windows does charge for its
   distribution.  That's the definition of commercial software.

But _you_ might not be allowed to do this.

   >   Note that folks like Red Hat use trademark enforcement to embed
   >   inherent monetary value, and associated redistribution
   >   restrictions, to their software packages.

   >Trademark doesn't come into play here.

   Of course they do. Redhat enterprise is commercial software that
   uses GPL code. The GPL code can be free redistributed, but a Redhat
   enterprise CD cannot because of the trademarks embedded into it.

This has nothing to do with trademarks.  The trademark status of the
"word" ``RedHat'' has absolutely nothing to do with me being allowed
redistribute RedHat Enterprise CD's.  Trademark comes into play when I
make a new product, or modify RedHat's product and call it a similar
name that would confuse customers into believing that it is indeed a
RedHat product.  That is what trademarks is about.  You are confusing
two disjoint aspects of law that have nothing in relation to each
other.

   >   If one could copy and redistribute an unmodified Redhat
   >   enterprise CD, trust me that folks would do so.

   >You can download RedHat GNU/Linux Enterprise edition from RedHat's
   >FTP site.

   With all of the trademarked logos? The exact same copy that they
   sell?

Trademarks have absolutely nothing to do with this.  They do not come
into play.  You are confusing two vastly different aspects of law that
have nothing to do with each other.

But yes, with the trademarked logos, and what not.  This has again
nothing to do with being allowed to redistribute the images, trademark
does not come into play when redistributing something.  It comes into
play when you market something with a similar or the same name.

   >   This isn't a sematics debate. I'm not Alex. I'm a GPL advocate
   >   trying to get useful information to people.
   >
   >When giving people useful information, one must correct their
   >mistakes.

   It's not a mistake. Sitting here differentiating the difference
   between closed source software and commercial software when the two
   have synonmous usage is a semantic argument.

They do not have the synonymous usage.  Closed source simply means
that the source is not available, but this is not the same as free
software or commercial software.  Commercial means that one is
charging a fee for the act of distributing the software.  It is indeed
a mistake, and a grave one at that to claim that non-free (or closed
source) software is the same as commercial software .  Commercial
software can be either non-free software, free software, open source
software or even close source software.  But it can also exclude
non-free software, open source software and close source software,
since all of those can be in some situations non-free software, which
might prohibit the act of distributing the program for a fee.  Free
software never does this, it always guarantees the right to charge a
fee for a program.

   Since you really want to take up this argument, take the time to
   explain to us how does one perform the same monetary distribution
   model as closed source software using GPL software? In the closed
   source model, I retain the source and use a license that prevents
   copying and redistribution. I then sell licenses to users.

This is non-free software and such subjugation of rights is non
acceptable.

   Since you really want to take up this argument, take the time to
   explain to us how does one perform the same monetary distribution
   model as closed source software using GPL software? In the closed
   source model, I retain the source and use a license that prevents
   copying and redistribution. I then sell licenses to users.

   What's the GPL analog to this activity so that I can make the same
   type of money using the GPL?

   I'd really like to hear this.

There is no analog to this activity, since the GPL is a free software
license, and it protects the users right to charge a fee for the act
of distribution.  Closed source software is by definition non-free
software, so the user is prohibited from exercising his rights.

   >  As a GPL advocate you should know that one of the major
   >misconceptions about the GPL is that it is supposedly not allowed
   >to use GPL programs in commercially.

   The model doesn't facilitate it. The distribution of GPL software
   is suject to a network effect. As such the monetary value of the
   software itself drops to virtually $0.

Again, wrong.  The GPL does not subject it self to any network effect.
It cannot, since there is no requirement that you must charge $0
dollars for the act of distributing, writing, or modifying the
program.  The value can be anything.

   It's the same issue that media people are having with P2P
   distribution of music and movies. Music used to be worth more when
   it wasn't easy to copy.  Now that it can be copied with impunity,
   it's worth less.

Again, simply not true.

   So take the time to show you practically how you can sell GPL
   software for a reasonable profit and I'll happliy change my tune.

Go look at RedHat, or maybe the FSF.  Perfect examples of how you can
charge a fee for the act of distribution (you can't "sell" software,
it is not a tangible object after all) including services and
warranties.

Cheers.