ca$h
Active Member
Според тази дискусия в форума на wordpress няма никакви проблеми да се махне линк от футъра темат точно заради GPL лиценза. Вие какво мислите по въпроса?
Мисля че, по тази точка минава махането на линка - води се промяна на част от прогрмата, затова и темата е отворена във форума на wordpress, a не е заключена и действието обявено за незаконно. Видя ли смислъла на дискусията, че темите се починяват на лиценза на wordpress, след като са направени за него и бъдат активирани, така че е съвсем законно да се махне линка за лична употреба. Линка трябва да се остави, ако от темата се направи статичен хтмл сайт например, а да се обяви тема под кретивкомон е всъшност незаконно.Ако промените своето копие или копия на програмата или на част от нея, или разработите друга програма, базирана на нея, имате право да разпространявате полученото производно произведение под договор GNU General Public License. Всякакви преводи на договора GNU General Public License трябва да бъдат придружени от GNU General Public License.
Относно линка:
Да не забравяме и изискването за предоставяне на самата програма. Ако не искате да сочите с линк, то трябва да я предлагате за download от при себе си, което ще ви прецака с трафик. С линк проблемът се решава най-лесно.
Базираики се, на горното твърдение и разсъждвайки върху лиценза, следва че подчертана част не се отнася за хора който не разпространява копия, а ползват едно конкретно модифицирано копие на един сайт. Точно както казват във форума на wordpress.The GPL I received with my WP tarball doesn't explicitly state that I can link non-GPL software to it, so I presume it can't be done.Sure it can. Are you redistributing, or are you an end-user?
Again, the GPL is about freedom, and it places no restrictions on how you *use* your GPL'd software. If I want to place my own copyrighted non-free code into a plugin that only I will use, then there's absolutely nothing preventing me from doing that.
Върху всяко разпространявано копие, вие сте длъжен на видно място и по подходящ начин да сложите съответната забележка, отнасяща се до авторските права и ограничената отговорност.
Ето го упоменаването за кого се отнася: "Върху всяко разпространявано копие...". Лицензът е важен, макар че в пиратска България и безплатното се краде.
Ако GPL беше просто "всеки да си го ползва както си иска", нямаше да има нужда от лиценз изобщо. Ако на конкретните модератори не им харесват тези ограничения от GPL (макар да са в тяхна полза), то нека си напишат някакъв друг неангажиращ с нищо лиценз.
Може да се обобщи накратко, че смисълът на GPL е да не се трият коментарите на авторите в сорса
Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals
“Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means they can't rely on any support.”
“You have to charge for the program to pay for providing the support.”
If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free without service, a company to provide just service to people who have obtained GNU free ought to be profitable.(3)
We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming work and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on from a software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough people, the vendor will tell you to get lost.
If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way is to have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any available person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any individual. With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of consideration for most businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It is still possible for there to be no available competent person, but this problem cannot be blamed on distribution arrangements. GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them.
Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need handholding: doing things for them which they could easily do themselves but don't know how.
Such services could be provided by companies that sell just hand-holding and repair service. If it is true that users would rather spend money and get a product with service, they will also be willing to buy the service having got the product free. The service companies will compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to any particular one. Meanwhile, those of us who don't need the service should be able to use the program without paying for the service.
“You cannot reach many people without advertising, and you must charge for the program to support that.”
“It's no use advertising a program people can get free.”
There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be used to inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But it may be true that one can reach more microcomputer users with advertising. If this is really so, a business which advertises the service of copying and mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful enough to pay for its advertising and more. This way, only the users who benefit from the advertising pay for it.
On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and such companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was not really necessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates don't want to let the free market decide this?(4)
“My company needs a proprietary operating system to get a competitive edge.”
GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems.
I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.(5)
“Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?”
If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs.
“Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?”
There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today are based on destruction.
Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity.
“Won't programmers starve?”
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.
But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.
Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In practice they would still make considerably more than that.)
“Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is used?”
“Control over the use of one's ideas” really constitutes control over other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.
People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights(6) carefully (such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to intellectual property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property rights that the government recognizes were created by specific acts of legislation for specific purposes.
For example, the patent system was established to encourage inventors to disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was to help society rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life span of 17 years for a patent was short compared with the rate of advance of the state of the art. Since patents are an issue only among manufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a license agreement are small compared with setting up production, the patents often do not do much harm. They do not obstruct most individuals who use patented products.
The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have survived even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for the purpose of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was invented—books, which could be copied economically only on a printing press—it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals who read the books.
All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole would benefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, we have to ask: are we really better off granting such license? What kind of act are we licensing a person to do?
The case of programs today is very different from that of books a hundred years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless of whether the law enables him to.
GPL-а не изисква да му пазиш линковете, а да го споменеш като автор, както и да посочиш от къде може да се вземе CMS-а, който ползваш (никъде не е указано да е във футера; казано е само да е на достатъчно видно място, т.е. не с цвета на фона). Никъде в лиценза няма изискване да му пазиш афилейт линковете или линкове към нещо несвързано с проекта. Естествено, ако ползваш модификация или модификация на модификацията, трябва да споменеш всички по пътя (това също беше споменато).
Ако не ви харесват безплатните лицензи, платете си за платен CMS или вложете пари в разработването на собствен. То за $0,01 нищо не става. Дори бонбон за толкова трудно ще си купиш.