Copywrite protection and source-code distribution

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Copywrite protection and source-code distribution

Gtk+ - Apps Dev mailing list
I have developed an application using GTK+3.10. What copy-write protection can you (GTK+) provide for me. I have been told that copywrite is free and automatic and that to protect the software from piracy I need sufficient money to prove prior usage in a court of law.  I don't see how the requirement of including my source code in the package will allow for successful commercialisation when someone can just simply copy the source-code.  I have no problems about acknowledging GTK+ for providing the GUI development platform and for helping with problems in coding, etcetera. Without adequate protection this requirement (including the source-code) renders GTK+ useless as far as any kind of commercialisation is concerned, please enlighten me on this matter.

Roger Matthews


[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>     Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
_______________________________________________
gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copywrite protection and source-code distribution

Gtk+ - Apps Dev mailing list
In my view, you can choose donation or ads!

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 08:31 Roger Matthews via gtk-app-devel-list <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have developed an application using GTK+3.10. What copy-write protection
> can you (GTK+) provide for me. I have been told that copywrite is free and
> automatic and that to protect the software from piracy I need sufficient
> money to prove prior usage in a court of law.  I don't see how the
> requirement of including my source code in the package will allow for
> successful commercialisation when someone can just simply copy the
> source-code.  I have no problems about acknowledging GTK+ for providing the
> GUI development platform and for helping with problems in coding, etcetera.
> Without adequate protection this requirement (including the source-code)
> renders GTK+ useless as far as any kind of commercialisation is concerned,
> please enlighten me on this matter.
>
> Roger Matthews
>
>
> [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png
> ]<
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>    Virus-free. www.avg.com<
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
>
_______________________________________________
gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copywrite protection and source-code distribution

Gtk+ - Apps Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Gtk+ - Apps Dev mailing list
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:31 AM Roger Matthews via gtk-app-devel-list
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have developed an application using GTK+3.10. What copy-write protection can you (GTK+) provide for me. I have been told that copywrite is free and automatic and that to protect the software from piracy I need sufficient money to prove prior usage in a court of law.  I don't see how the requirement of including my source code in the package will allow for successful commercialisation when someone can just simply copy the source-code.  I have no problems about acknowledging GTK+ for providing the GUI development platform and for helping with problems in coding, etcetera. Without adequate protection this requirement (including the source-code) renders GTK+ useless as far as any kind of commercialisation is concerned, please enlighten me on this matter.

First, do not rely on any legal advice you receive from a mailing list
on the Internet. Get a real lawyer.

Second, it’s “copyright”, not “copywrite”.

Third, GTK+ is licensed under Lesser GPL. You are under no obligation
to disclose your application source code if you are not so inclined,
as long as you keep it possible for the end user to re-link your
application with a modified version of GTK+.

And finally, get a real lawyer.
_______________________________________________
gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copywrite protection and source-code distribution

Colomban Wendling-3
In reply to this post by Gtk+ - Apps Dev mailing list
I am not a lawyer, but…

Le 31/07/2018 à 15:41, Roger Matthews via gtk-app-devel-list a écrit :
> I have developed an application using GTK+3.10. What copy-write
> protection can you (GTK+) provide for me.

GTK+ doesn't "provide copyright protection" for software using it, and
no library does.  GTK+ is licensed under the LGPL license, which
basically means you can use it as a dynamic library from software
distributed in any license (basically, it being free software or
proprietary software).

> I have been told that
> copywrite is free and automatic and that to protect the software from
> piracy I need sufficient money to prove prior usage in a court of
> law.

Yes, the simple fact you wrote the software is enough.  The concept of
"proving prior usage" is only when there's actually litigation, and you
need to prove you're actually the original author, so it's indeed yours.
 I have no idea what's legal in which countries, but some people
mentioned sending yourself a copy of the software through snail mail
(with the post office stamp on it) and keep it unopened as evidence, but
I guess any method that can tie a legal date with your software is fine.

> I don't see how the requirement of including my source code in
> the package will allow for successful commercialisation when someone
> can just simply copy the source-code.

What requirement?  You're not *required* to distribute your software
under an open source kind of license, GTK+'s license allows you to
dynamically link it to a closed source software.  You're the one to
decide here, you just need to make sure you follow the clauses of the
licenses of the libraries you're using, but in the case of GTK+ you can
still select a proprietary license for your software if you really want.
 Not that I think it's a good idea, but I guess it's irrelevant :)

However, if you're distributing GTK+ yourself, you're required to
provide the sources for it, but if it's just upstream it might be OK to
just link to the upstream sources.  But that only applies to the parts
that *are* under a free software license -- well, under any license
telling you you have to do that.

You're also confusing copyright and making money.  Pretty much any
source code has a form of copyright on it, the copyright is basically
the rules that control how it can be copied.  Free software licenses,
even if often referred as "copyleft" for the wordplay, is a form of
copyright: it states the rules for redistributing, it just happens to
require openness (in case of e.g. GPL and cousins) instead of
disallowing it.

> I have no problems about
> acknowledging GTK+ for providing the GUI development platform and for
> helping with problems in coding, etcetera.

I'm not sure what's the rule about acknowledgment in case of using a
library.  I guess it's customary to mention you're using it, but it
might not be required to do so at a user level.

> Without adequate
> protection this requirement (including the source-code) renders GTK+
> useless as far as any kind of commercialisation is concerned, please
> enlighten me on this matter.

I guess you misunderstood the GTK+ license, that *does not* state that
you have to distribute the sources of your application [1].  You do have
to distribute the sources of *changes made to GTK+* in case you did
some, but that's it.

This said, there are plenty of successful companies making money out of
free and open source software, they just don't sell the code itself
usually -- although they *could*, so long as people will buy it.

Regards,
Colomban


[1] well, I don't wanna confuse you, but it's a little more subtle than
that: you're only required to distribute *derivative* work under the
same license (LGPL for GTK+).  What is a *derivative* work is the
question here, and dynamically linking your application to GTK+ does not
make your application a derivative work of GTK+.  Statically linking it
would, though.  You can find an enormous amount of info on that on the
Internet, and you can obviously carefully read the GTK+ license.
_______________________________________________
gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copywrite protection and source-code distribution

David C. Rankin
In reply to this post by Gtk+ - Apps Dev mailing list
On 07/31/2018 08:41 AM, Roger Matthews via gtk-app-devel-list wrote:
> I have developed an application using GTK+3.10. What copy-write protection can you (GTK+) provide for me. I have been told that copywrite is free and automatic and that to protect the software from piracy I need sufficient money to prove prior usage in a court of law.  I don't see how the requirement of including my source code in the package will allow for successful commercialisation when someone can just simply copy the source-code.  I have no problems about acknowledging GTK+ for providing the GUI development platform and for helping with problems in coding, etcetera. Without adequate protection this requirement (including the source-code) renders GTK+ useless as far as any kind of commercialisation is concerned, please enlighten me on this matter.
>
> Roger Matthews
>

GTK+ is licensed under the GNU LGPL 2.1 allowing development of both free and
proprietary software with GTK+ without any license fees or royalties.

...

 To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid distributors
to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender these rights. These
restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute
copies of the library or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a
fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you. You must
make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If you link
other code with the library, you must provide complete object files to the
recipients, so that they can relink them with the library after making changes
to the library and recompiling it. And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.

...

By using Gtk+ in your project, you have agreed to both these rights and
responsibilities.

However, the protections against piracy depends largely on how your code is
factored and the uses it can be put to. While you have an obligation to
provide the Gtk+source and any modification and use you have made of it, but
that doesn't necessarily extend to all your source code. If you have a
"proprietary" part of your code, that does not include or rely on Gtk+ or any
extension and modification from it, you may well be free to copyright the
non-open portion any way you like. (I have seen decisions that carve out parts
of projects that can be protected.

Remember how long and how much money the SCO suit cost? Litigation is
something to avoid. It you want to impose a stricter license on some part of
your code, make sure you can prove that code doesn't rely on Gtk and isn't an
extension or modification from it. Then nothing prevents you from licensing
that part as you see fit. But if you can't make a clear delineation between
where the open-source code stop and where yours begins, it may not be worth
the hassle. Depending on what the code is, and your competitors in the market,
that may just provide a bullseye they were looking for.

--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
_______________________________________________
gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copywrite protection and source-code distribution

Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS
In reply to this post by Gtk+ - Apps Dev mailing list
Well Roger

what does your software do?  Lets see if it is worth copying first, and
if so then I might copy it and distribute it for free.


On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 01:04:05PM +0700, Lucky B.C via gtk-app-devel-list wrote:

> In my view, you can choose donation or ads!
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 08:31 Roger Matthews via gtk-app-devel-list <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I have developed an application using GTK+3.10. What copy-write protection
> > can you (GTK+) provide for me. I have been told that copywrite is free and
> > automatic and that to protect the software from piracy I need sufficient
> > money to prove prior usage in a court of law.  I don't see how the
> > requirement of including my source code in the package will allow for
> > successful commercialisation when someone can just simply copy the
> > source-code.  I have no problems about acknowledging GTK+ for providing the
> > GUI development platform and for helping with problems in coding, etcetera.
> > Without adequate protection this requirement (including the source-code)
> > renders GTK+ useless as far as any kind of commercialisation is concerned,
> > please enlighten me on this matter.
> >
> > Roger Matthews
> >
> >
> > [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png
> > ]<
> > http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> >    Virus-free. www.avg.com<
> > http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
> >
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list

--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com 

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com 

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

_______________________________________________
gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list