The new startup text for ShowEQ

[KennySP]

ShowEQ 4.0.0, released under the GPL.
All ShowEQ sourcecode is Copyright (C) 2000, 2001, 2002 by the respective ShowEQ Developers
Binary Distribution without source code and resale are explicictly NOT authorized by ANY party.
If you have paid for this software in any way, shape, or form, the person selling the
software is doing so in violation of livensing methods of this product.

Please see http://seq.sourceforge.net for further information


Now I'm not advocating that you go out and sell ShowEQ, or anyting like that, but is ShowEQ under the GPL or is ShowEQ under a different license? The reason I ask is that there is *NOTHING* in the GPL saying that you can not sell the software. So if you have paid for the software the person selling it is well within thier rights as given by the GPL. The only restriction is they have to make available for download or with the binary the sourcecode for ShowEQ.

The GPL doesn't care if you charge for the software, but what is *DOES* care about is that the sourcecode itself is available *FOR FREE + minor cost of media, or for free download over the internet*. If someone wanted to package ShowEQ with a nice easy installer, maps with lotsa new information, or as a selling point on a P133 linux router they could do so, no questions asked so long as they provide the sourcecode to *ANYONE* who asks for it, customer or not.

Now, do I think ShowEQ or Everquest would get advantage from someone doing that? Yes and No. Yes because If someone were legitimately trying to do that you would have a better installation procedure, perhaps maps with more points of interest (Not saying the maps aren't great already...). Those good things would then be freely ported back into the main source tree. They would still be available in the free version, so it would be at the point, *WHY* bother paying for it? No because seeing anyone profit from a tool Verant doesn't like likely upset Verant even more than they currently are.

Overall It seems likely that anyone who sold ShowEQ probably would not add any innovations to it, and as such I think that It's best that ShowEQ not be split like that, as whoever split it would just be leeching off of the innovation of the developers.

The only thing that would be missing would be libEQ.a, which isn't a part of ShowEQ. If you wanted to go and license libEQ.a so that you couldn't use it for any version of ShowEQ other than one obtained from the CVS server you could do just that and it would be fine.

I'm just bringing this to your attention because the added restrictions in the startup message of ShowEQ is in violation of the GPL.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the GPL isn't just a software license, it's a guarantee for free speech.

KennySP

[KennySP]

Perhaps instead of saying they are inviolation of the license you could say they are pulling a fast one on the person who is buying the code?

KennySP

[Ratt]

As I understand the GPL (and I reread it when I changed that) is that you can not sell the software itself. You can charge a fee for distribution/media it comes on, but reselling the actual software is against the GPL if the original authors do not authorize you to sell it.

I'm more than willing to accept that I've misinterpreted it, can you cite the paragraphs that you think are relevent?

[KennySP]

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

It's in the FAQ

=)

KennySP

[orenwolf]

Originally posted by Ratt
As I understand the GPL (and I reread it when I changed that) is that you can not sell the software itself. You can charge a fee for distribution/media it comes on, but reselling the actual software is against the GPL if the original authors do not authorize you to sell it.

Nope, entirely untrue.

In fact, I can bundle up ShowEQ and sell it for $1000 a copy if I so choose.

The GPL says that I must provide the *source* with any copies I sell, that's all.

The Purpose of the GPL is to ensure that the source can't be swiped up, compiled into a binary (with or without changes) and sold. It instead guarantees that, no matter what, you can always have "equivalent" access to the source code itself.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[fryfrog]

also, it seems another big point of the GPL is that once you buy it (or if you buy it) there isn't any restriction on who you can give it away free to. just pointing it out. redhat / mandrake might be a good example. mandrake took redhats work, made it better and both sell and give it away for free. i don't think microsoft would be to happy if someone did that to them :)