There have already been some (more general) discussions about the GPL license and addons on the BlenderArtists forum.
I wanted this discussion to focus on e-cycles.
…
2 Likes
Hi @xan2622, I find it always better not to do that, as there is a risk for a discussion to heat up and then it may be damaging to the work of someone who put a big bunch of work into making something benefitial like in this for the blender ecosystem. Why exactly do you think its helpful to talk about ecylces, that its a derived work by large scale or what?
1 Like
Yeah, I had intentionally not mentioned E-Cycles in this new thread title, because from my experience as a Blender Artists moderator, E-Cycles discussions are notorious for getting heated.
But let’s see how it goes.
1 Like
E-Cycles, is not more important here, than as an example, it could be any other software that is distributing binaries with GPL license, and addons are excluded, because when you “use as a user” an addon you can see its code, it’s python is not hidden, you don’t need to request it, if you have it you can already see it.
Does anyone know another GPL project that is in the E-Cycles situation?? mostly so that it doesn’t look like we have something against E-Cycles.
1 Like
That’s not how the GPL works though, you don’t get to impose arbitrary additional conditions on the release of source, placing a 1 year delay on the availability is no different than “I’ll release the code when the pope dances on tv in a pink tutu”
4 Likes
I think the whole point of the question is: does a user have rights or does only one customer have them? ??
because obviously a client is a user, but a user does not have to be a client…
To give an example, A-Eevee sells some binaries under GPL license and it is a software derived from another GPL project, and I happen to be the dev of that project… would I have to pay for example 3000 ?? to have the right to ask for the code of something that includes mine? could the dev of A-Eevee refuse to give me what if I don’t pay previously?
The conditions of sale are set by the seller, who can ask for example :
option A) binary+source code = 1000000000000 €
option B) binary = 200 €
No state law prevents him from doing that, and he would be respecting the GPL according to some of your arguments.
do you want the code? what kind of customer are you? A or B ?
No one made that sort of claim as far as I have seen.
E-Cycles users (for sure the ones who purchased the binaries) need to be able to get the source code of those binaries.
The one who pays, but I have two rates, which gives you the right to pay 0,0000001 € and I also have the right or it has to be what the seller asks in the conditions that the seller marks ?
please note that you only become a user/customer when the purchase is made… not when you decide to buy…
There’s limitations in the GPL how much you can charge for making the source available, from section 6B of the gpl V3
Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
So you may choose to ship the code on DVD for the cost of producing that dvd + shipping cost, but that’s about where your right to charge end. So the choices would be
option A) binary+source code on DVD = 215 €
option B) binary = 200 €
Anyone buying option B, still has the right to request the code at a later point in time for an additional €15
4 Likes
No its nothing like that.Option B definitely brings you into the situation that you can ask for the code in principle for free. That’s exactly what the GPL assures.
1 Like
Then the source code is free, only the support I am provided with has a cost obviously…
But just as now (as defended by some) the seller of the code can refuse to provide it, if you have not been a customer … which prevents him from putting a rule but that establishes that customer if they have rights and that customers do not yet have it … although both have bought the product …
for example Microsoft has this concept of selling, only exclusive customers can have access to the code.
No, being a client is what gives you access… (according to some of you)
now we have to distinguish which type of customer…
because that is allowed in the laws of all OCD countries.
My personal view is: Customer/user seems irrelevant it’s a legal agreement between the entity distributing the software and one that receives it, Lets imagine 3 people Bob, Alice and Gary
If Bob sells Alice a copy of “blandar pro” which is a fork of blender for $100, Alice gets the right to ask Bob for the code. Bob owes nothing to Gary as he was not part of this transaction. Now if Alice gives Gary a copy for free after obtaining it from Bob (which is perfectly allowed under the GPL) Gary now has the right to ask Alice for the code, Bob still has no obligations to Gary though.
8 Likes
Absolutely correct and following the most overwhelming logic.
Cheers…
1 Like
I don’t agree, that would leave the door open to that for example:
I can claim to Alice the source code, since she has given me the binaries, whether 100% free or paying 200 € , I am her client/user…
beware of providing GPL binaries because you automatically become responsible for providing the source code…
so you should claim what you buy immediately or a friend may put you in front of a judge…
I still don’t get where do you see user = customer, and where do you see in the license that you have to ask for the code to the person who provided you the binary… I see that the developer has to provide the code to the user, nothing more nothing less.
In fact, please show me, as I showed you before, where in the license, there is a relation between user and customer, and where is specified that you can only ask for the code to the person that gave you the binary.
What is not in the license it’s just a subjective interpretation and it’s made up by subjective wishes and ideas, I’ve never said I agree or not with what I say about the license, what I say is what I see in the license, if you see a different thing, please post here the exact words.
The article 6 just gives the possible options for the dev to post the code, but it does not forbid the right to the user to access the code, and as I said, a user is a user not a customer.
Maybe, if you are not a user, the programmer can argue that he has to charge you something to acces the code, but that charge will have to be real and sustained, if he has sent the code before by any means without cost, he would probable be required to use the same way, without cost.
As soon as someone becomes a user of a GPL software, that user has the right to ask for the code to the programmer whoever the programmer is.
However I’ll write the FSF about this case, it’s important to make it clear IMHO
If someone decides to convey the binaries (object code) as described under 6. d) in the GPL 3, only users who have access to the binaries (object code) through the provided channel, need to have access to the source code.
Though, everyone who further distributes the binaries would need to ensure that the source code is available too.
1 Like
My2c
For what I get ,in GPL land, you as user are entitled to each and every patch (source code) that make up the final product (original or derivated), but then is up to you to merge them in the right order and compile the binaries with the right flags. But you are not entitile on the help on doing so or any other type of support.
The value I see in the binary against the sources is someone else doing the heavy lifting on the binaries, ensure alignment with base code, compile , debug , test etc… (what basically the blender foundation provides), which is what you are asked to pay for.
Then the patches can and should be redistributed on different channels from the original product (unless there’s an agreement) , but still, should be accessible to anyone who makes request of them (end users as well as just curious developers)
This means though, you could get the patch as diff through email for the currently used version, and have to ask every time there’s a potential change.
1 Like
that’s fair, i am often wrong.
She has distributed (term in GPLV2, in GPL V3 look for conveyed) a copy of the software to you, that is the only thing that matters, if she did this for free, charged you, or made you dance on tv in a pink tutu is irrelevant, by distributing a copy to you the right to request the source is granted to you by the GPL.
beware-> by way ? if you mean by-way then yes.
Well that escalated quickly, but depending on the legal framework in your country, yes someone could probably sue you for not holding up your end of the contract.
3 Likes