diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/selling-exceptions.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/selling-exceptions.html | 184 |
1 files changed, 184 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/selling-exceptions.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/selling-exceptions.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5da0eb9 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/selling-exceptions.html @@ -0,0 +1,184 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.90 --> +<title>Selling Exceptions to the GNU GPL +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions" /> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/selling-exceptions.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Selling Exceptions to the GNU GPL</h2> + +<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a></p> + +<p>Selling exceptions means that the copyright holder of the code +releases it to the general public under a valid free software license, +then separately offers users the option of paying for permission to +use the same code under different terms, for instance terms allowing +its inclusion in proprietary applications.</p> + +<p>We must distinguish the practice of selling exceptions from something +crucially different: purely proprietary extensions or versions of +a free program. These two activities, even if practiced +simultaneously by one company, are different issues. In selling +exceptions, the same code that the exception applies to is available +to the general public as free software. An extension or a modified +version that is only available under a proprietary license is +proprietary software, pure and simple, and just as wrong as any other +proprietary software. This article is concerned with cases that +involve strictly and only the sale of exceptions.</p> + +<p>We must also distinguish selling exceptions from dual licensing, +which means releasing the program under a choice of licenses. With +dual licensing, each user can choose to use the program under either +one of the licenses, or under both in parallel for activities that fit +both. (Thus, redistributors normally pass along both of the +licenses.) For instance, Perl was distributed for many years under a +dual license whose alternatives were the GNU GPL and the Artistic +License. That is not necessary any more because version 2 of the +Artistic License is compatible with the GNU GPL.</p> + +<p>In selling exceptions, the exception's terms are not a second +license that the program is released under. Rather, they are +available only to those users that buy an exception. The only license +that the release carries is the GNU GPL, so this is not dual +licensing.</p> + +<p>We must distinguish selling of exceptions from the usual kind of +“exception to the GPL,” which simply gives all users +permission to go beyond the GPL's conditions in some specific way. +These exceptions are governed by section 7 of the GNU GPL. Selling +exceptions is legally independent of the GNU GPL. To avoid confusion +it is best not to refer to exceptions that are sold as +“exceptions to the GPL.”</p> + +<p>I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on +occasion I've suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has +made it possible for important programs to become free software.</p> + +<p>The KDE desktop was developed in the 90s based on the Qt library. Qt +was proprietary software, and TrollTech charged for permission to +embed it in proprietary applications. TrollTech allowed gratis use of +Qt in free applications, but this did not make it free/libre software. +Completely free operating systems therefore could not include Qt, so +they could not use KDE either.</p> + +<p>In 1998, the management of TrollTech recognized that they could +make Qt free software and continue charging for permission to embed it +in proprietary software. I do not recall whether the suggestion came +from me, but I certainly was happy to see the change, which made it +possible to use Qt and thus KDE in the free software world.</p> + +<p>Initially, they used their own license, the Q Public License +(QPL)—quite restrictive as free software licenses go, and +incompatible with the GNU GPL. Later they switched to the GNU GPL; I +think I had explained to them that it would work for the purpose.</p> + +<p>Selling exceptions depends fundamentally on using a copyleft +license, such as the GNU GPL, for the free software release. A +copyleft license permits embedding in a larger program only if the +whole combined program is released under that license; this is how it +ensures extended versions will also be free. Thus, users that want to +make the combined program proprietary need special permission. Only +the copyright holder can grant that, and selling exceptions is one +style of doing so. Someone else, who received the code under the GNU +GPL or another copyleft license, cannot grant an exception.</p> + +<p>When I first heard of the practice of selling exceptions, I asked +myself whether the practice is ethical. If someone buys an exception +to embed a program in a larger proprietary program, he's doing +something wrong (namely, making proprietary software). Does it follow +that the developer that sold the exception is doing something wrong +too?</p> + +<p>If that implication were valid, it would also apply to releasing the +same program under a noncopyleft free software license, such as the +X11 license. That also permits such embedding. So either we have to +conclude that it's wrong to release anything under the X11 +license—a conclusion I find unacceptably extreme—or reject +the implication. Using a noncopyleft license is weak, +and <a href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html">usually an +inferior choice</a>, but it's not wrong.</p> + +<p>In other words, selling exceptions permits limited embedding of the +code in proprietary software, but the X11 license goes even further, +permitting unlimited use of the code (and modified versions of it) in +proprietary software. If this doesn't make the X11 license +unacceptable, it doesn't make selling exceptions unacceptable.</p> + +<p>There are three reasons why the FSF doesn't practice selling +exceptions. One is that it doesn't lead to the FSF's goal: assuring +freedom for each user of our software. That's what we wrote the GNU +GPL for, and the way to achieve this most thoroughly is to release +under GPL version 3-or-later and not allow embedding in proprietary +software. Selling exceptions wouldn't achieve this, just as release +under the X11 license wouldn't. So normally we don't do either of +those things: we release under the GPL only.</p> + +<p>Another reason we release only under the GPL is so as not to permit +proprietary extensions that would present practical advantages over +our free programs. Users for whom freedom is not a value might choose +those non-free versions rather than the free programs they are based +on—and lose their freedom. We don't want to encourage that.</p> + +<p>There are occasional cases where, for specific reasons of +strategy, we decide that using a more permissive license on a certain +program is better for the cause of freedom. In those cases, we +release the program to everyone under that permissive license.</p> + +<p>This is because of another ethical principle that the FSF follows: +to treat all users the same. An idealistic campaign for freedom +should not discriminate, so the FSF is committed to giving the same +license to all users. The FSF never sells exceptions; whatever +license or licenses we release a program under, that is available to +everyone.</p> + +<p>But we need not insist that companies follow that principle. I +consider selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, +and I will suggest it where appropriate as a way to get programs +freed.</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a +href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. There are also <a +href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and other +corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a +href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for +information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.</p> +</div> + +<p>Copyright © 2009, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Richard Stallman</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2019/12/30 11:28:30 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> +</html> |