Dear Cartola On 14.10.2013 20:28, Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola) wrote: > Hi all, > > I have recently recommended this tool to a friend: > > http://photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php > > He answered me back saying the tool is not totally free. If you want to > enable all features and use it with images bigger than 500px you need to > pay something. > > So, the question is, isn't enfuse a GPL licensed tool? And being so, > wouldn't them be enforced to release their tool under the same license, > for free and make the source available?
I'm not a layer, but here is how I see it anyhow: Yes and no. Redistributing a GPL licensed application forces you to adhere to the GPL. This generally means that you have to provide the source code and all changes you have implemented. And you have to grant the right to compile and modify the application to your "customer", too. However, there is no obligation in the GPL that you have to do this for free. Actually, you can charge whatever you want to for providing binaries. On the other hand, look at what this guy provides; "LR/Enfuse is a Lightroom plugin that allows you to blend multiple exposures together directly from within Lightroom by using the open source Enfuse application." Here, you are charged for a lightroom (which is nor GPL, neither open source) plugin that allows you to use a GPL licensed application (enfuse). So, the fee you (or your friend) is expected to pay does not cover the GPL'ed enfuse functionality but the integration thereof into a closed source application. And even If this guy would charge you for a compiled version of enfuse for the operating system of your choice, there is nothing in the GPL to prevent him from doing so as long as he adheres to the GPL, meaning that he has to offer you the option to get the sources (and compile them yourself) including all the changes he implemented. It would be another case if this guy o would sell an application containing a GPL licensed library (say libpano, for example) without providing the source code to his application o would sell a GPL licensed application without providing the source code including his modifications In essence, GPL is about 'free as in in freedom', not 'free as in beer'. Again, I'm not a lawyer (thanks God), but this is how I see the GPL issue. Regards Stefan Peter -- "In summary, I think you are trying to solve a problem that may not need to be solved, using a tool that is not meant to solve it, without understanding what is causing your problems and without knowing how the tool actually works in the first place :)" Jeffrey J. Kosowsky on the backuppc mailing list
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
