Version 4 Downloads

[jbrown94305]

Anyone heard when version 4 will be available for download?

[StarKnight83]

Its already availible for enhanced ydl.net members. And if they follow the original schedual it will be on the public mirrors in about 4 weeks

[schlagen]

Is that kosher? I mean, doesn't it count as a violation of the GPL for those 4 weeks if we can't get a copy for free?

[StarKnight83]

not really sure, but i doubt it-and noone is willing to push the issue its just 4 weeks; besides i know of a few OSS projects that have closed beta/patches. And it will be free-what we're paying for is either like a sneak preview or advanced services for a new prodect (<--think this one is closer to the truth)

[cepaea_nemoralis]

I think that the GPL says that you can't sell the rights to the software, that is, the person can sell you CD's with the software, packaging, installation instructions, a warranty, and so on. But the person selling it cannot prevent you from modifying the software in any way or copying it and giving it away. The contrast is with, say, microsoft, who will not let anyone see their code. So I don't think that not distributing the software to everyone would violate the license in any way. On the other hand, I suppose that the license would prevent terrasoft from saying that people that downloaded it for a fee from distributing it to other people for free. I wonder if anyone has tried that.

I think that it would be prudent to wait until they issued the final release though, because I imagine they are still working out some bugs, and some will not become apparent until many people have used the software.

-Adam

[zadzagy]

Just wondering if the downloads will be available via bittorrent when released to the unwashed masses?

[ramsejc]

I think that the GPL says that you can't sell the rights to the software, that is, the person can sell you CD's with the software, packaging, installation instructions, a warranty, and so on. But the person selling it cannot prevent you from modifying the software in any way or copying it and giving it away. The contrast is with, say, microsoft, who will not let anyone see their code. So I don't think that not distributing the software to everyone would violate the license in any way.

...

-Adam

Actually, the GPL says that you are required to make changes freely available, but AFAIK, there is no timeframe on it. You can go as long as the original source code's owner will let you. See the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, which says:

------------- BEGIN GPL SNIP --------------
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:



a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
------------- END GPL SNIP --------------

Therefore, you must make publicly available at 'no charge' any works derived from software under the GPL. A good example of this is TIVO. You can download the source code that every TIVo uses. I have the web address somewhere. (I seen it on slashdot, and thought it may be worht holding onto...) Now, do you think that TIVO would release it's source freely if it did not have to, thus letting all competitors in the PVR market see a good majority of their trade secrets?

Not to go out on a tangent or anything, just thought I'd post some clarity here...