1 Topic by cheval3893

  • cheval3893
  • Member
  • Offline

Hey Joan and others,

If I was to wrap the kinovea.exe file in a protected wrapper file that allows me to control access to the program would that violate the GPL version 2 license?

I'm looking to use this option to offer a trial.  Or to distribute by a subscription basis and then allowing the subscription to expire thereby blocking access to running the program.

The GPL version 2 states "Activities other than copying, distribution, and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside it's scope.  The act of running the Program is not restricted..."  The way I view this is that I could use another propriortory program to restrict access to the software since "the act of running the Program is not restricted..." or not covered under the license.  I plan to give customers the same copying, distribution, and modification rights that I have and also make sure they know these rights. (For example, receiving copies of source code and etc.)

What do you guys think?

2 Reply by joan (edited by joan 2010-11-04 10:31:50)

  • joan
  • joan
  • Admin
  • Offline

Hi,
I can't really offer legal advice, but here goes:
- Derivative works have to be under the GPLv2.
- A wrapper constitute a derivative work.
From the license: A derivative work is "a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications (…)".

If one could simply create a proprietary wrapper around a GPL software, the whole notion of copyleft would vanish.
From the GPL FAQ: I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?

Maybe you have to better define what you mean by wrapper. If it could be used for any other program, then they are effectively two different programs. Different answer.

3 Reply by cheval3893

  • cheval3893
  • Member
  • Offline

The wrapper is another program and is not based on the Kinovea software or in any way associated with it.  It is a proprietary software that is used with many other types of programs.  The wrapper simply allows me to create a trial version or distribute / sell by subscription. 

In the future, I hope to add some other features to Kinovea.  These additions would obviously be covered under the GPLv2 as a derivative of the work.

Basically, I wanted to charge a subscription fee for distributing the software and including a "Video Support" service in which I help customers get videoed or I train others to shoot quality video.

I completely plan on letting customers know that it is open source, that they can request the code and copy, modify, and distribute it themselves.

As the developer, would this be okay with you?  I've talked to some lawyers and they say it is somewhat of a gray area.  So, I just thought I'd ask you.

Will

4 Reply by joan (edited by joan 2010-11-04 14:58:34)

  • joan
  • joan
  • Admin
  • Offline

I'm not sure I see the point of blocking access to a program and at the same time letting everyone know that it is free to get on the Internet ?
Will there be anything else than Kinovea in the restricting container ?

Also, the enclosed instance of Kinovea would have to retain the right to be copied, distributed again, etc. by users — will that still be true ? Will the enclosed Kinovea be independant or just a part of a larger whole ? Can a user get access to Kinovea binaries individually ? If not, they are not independant programs…
I would understand this model for a launcher or an installer, the distributed program being still available individually for anyone to repackage, but I can't see how it could work - technically - for a blocking wrapper.

As the developer, would this be okay with you?

Thanks for asking.
The project strives for maximum openness and availability.
Note that I'm not the only copyright holder, there is more than 15 translators, and of course all the included library with their own licenses.

Also note that you can charge for the program itself, without wrapping it up, this is perfectly allowed by the license.

edit:
I want to state that I like the idea of creating a service-based business around Kinovea. Providing your expertise, knowledge, teaching skills, etc.

5 Reply by cheval3893

  • cheval3893
  • Member
  • Offline
joan wrote:

I'm not sure I see the point of blocking access to a program and at the same time letting everyone know that it is free to get on the Internet ? Basically, most people (my non-technical customers) would not even realize that the software is open source even though they will checkmark that they've read the license agreement.

Will there be anything else than Kinovea in the restricting container ? No, only the kinovea.exe file will be wrapped in a container type file.  My Analogy. I think of the wrapper as a door to a house.  Open the door and you have access to the house.  Close the door and you no longer have access to it.  However, if people would simply read the GPL v2, then they'd realize they could get the house for a one time distribution charge.

Also, the enclosed instance of Kinovea would have to retain the right to be copied, distributed again, etc. by users — will that still be true ? Yes, this will still be true.  Each program distributed to a customer will contain a copy of the GPL v2 license.  And remember, customer's will have checkmarked that they read and understood the agreement.  If a person requests a copy, I will provide them with the preferred form of work for the program, source code, and etc.

Will the enclosed Kinovea be independant or just a part of a larger whole ? Not, exactly sure what you mean here?  The wrapper program is an independant program (Not part of Kinovea and so not covered under the GPL v2).  It will wrap only the .exe file.  Allowing me to create trial period or subscription.  The wrapper file I plan to use is called Protection Plus, go to http://www.softwarekey.com/protection-plus/

Can a user get access to Kinovea binaries individually ? If not, they are not independant programs…
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by binaries (I'm not a developer!).  Basically, if a customer requests a copy of the program (because they've actually read the license agreement) I could simply direct them to download the program from kinovea.org.

I would understand this model for a launcher or an installer, the distributed program being still available individually for anyone to repackage, but I can't see how it could work - technically - for a blocking wrapper.

As the developer, would this be okay with you?

Thanks for asking.
The project strives for maximum openness and availability.
Note that I'm not the only copyright holder, there is more than 15 translators, and of course all the included library with their own licenses.

Also note that you can charge for the program itself, without wrapping it up, this is perfectly allowed by the license.

edit:
I want to state that I like the idea of creating a service-based business around Kinovea. Providing your expertise, knowledge, teaching skills, etc.

Thank you so much for responding and answering these questions.  From a business standpoint it makes sense to sell / distribute by a recurring subscription fee.  I plan to use kinovea myself to train horse riders on their position and riding technique.  I also wanted to make a profit offering this software to other horse trainers, while providing a "Video Support (help getting videoed) service.

I plan to be open in providing the software and following the GPL v2.  However, customer's need to have some responsibility and when they've checkmarked that they've read and understand the license agreement, they actually should have!

From a developer's standpoint would it be okay with you if I sold / distributed the software by subscription? 

6 Reply by cheval3893

  • cheval3893
  • Member
  • Offline

Joan,

This is how I interpret parts of the GPL v2 license.

"Activities other than copying, distribution, and modification are not covered by this license; they are outside it's scope.  The act of running the program is not restricted..."  Therefore, blocking access to running the program is outside the scope of this license.  The last part of that quote, I interpret as the license doesn't cover the act of running the program.  Blocking access (by a wrapper file for the .exe) would be under the act of running the program.

"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program on a volume of storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this license."  I interpret this to mean that I could use the wrapper file for any purpose since it is not covered by the license.

"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.  Your must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.  And your must show them these terms so they know their rights."  I plan to give customers the same rights I have.  I also plan to include a statement after the license v2 that tell them the web address where they can download the source code or even download an executable form that is installed on their computer (www.kinovea.org).

Thanks for all your thoughts and your time in replying!  It really helps.

Will

7 Reply by Phalanger (edited by Phalanger 2010-11-05 02:24:48)

  • Phalanger
  • Member
  • Offline
cheval3893 wrote:

"Activities other than copying, distribution, and modification are not covered by this license; they are outside it's scope.  The act of running the program is not restricted..."  Therefore, blocking access to running the program is outside the scope of this license.  The last part of that quote, I interpret as the license doesn't cover the act of running the program.  Blocking access (by a wrapper file for the .exe) would be under the act of running the program.

It would come under distribution, as that's the purpose of the software.

cheval3893 wrote:

"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program on a volume of storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this license."  I interpret this to mean that I could use the wrapper file for any purpose since it is not covered by the license.

This is talking about work included in a GPL2 work, not including GPL2 work in another work.


My understand of GPL2 is that:

You can charge for distribution (like costs for medium distribution like packaging you see in a store, DVDs etc).  You can also charge for offering support (this is what Linux companies do), as they are paying for the actual service.

Add-ons is another thing which can be charged for (like plugins) when they run in their own right.

However you can't simply charge for the program (like holding a subscription on using the program).  That would be profiting off someone else's work and intellectual property.