I've never heard of such a thing and limewire.com seems entirely devoid of any information attempting to explain itself. If it's open source, how can one attempt to charge for a 'pro' version? If I download the source code from the website and help in development, will my work profit somebody else? Where do the funds go, anyway? Is the 'pro' code not gpl licensed? What are these marketing gimmicks about 'better search results' and 'turbo-charged download speeds'? I couldn't find any info anywhere on how such feats are accomplished. Surely it is well known that an experienced eye is trained to view such claims with EXTREME SCEPTICISM until they are explained. In fact, where Limewire once gained my instant trust due to it's mere association with the GPL, I am now as reluctant to use it as I am of any other p2p client. I did eventually give it a try, but the shareware-like popup asking me to purchase a pro version and having a 'later' option in place of 'no' was the last straw. Limewire is off my computer and on my s***list until somebody does some explaining. Any takers? I am a perfectly reasonable and intellegent creature and am fully prepared to stick my foot in my mouth and retract everything I just said if there exists a good explanation for everything. I'll not deny that I'm a bit hotheaded at the moment, however I do believe that I have brought up some questions that simply must be answered, ideally in the FAQ on limewire.com.

Open Source Shareware? I've never heard of such a thing and limewire.com

Linux

https://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce

If it's open source, how can one attempt to charge for a 'pro' version?

1) OpenSource doesn't mean something is free at all (neither as in "free beer" nor "free speech")
2) And GPL'd doesn't mean something is free like free beer either: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

If I download the source code from the website and help in development, will my work profit somebody else?

Yes. Everybody will profit from your work including yourself.

Where do the funds go, anyway?

They pay their bills and...

http://www.limewire.org/wishlist.shtml
http://www.limewire.org/awards.shtml

Is the 'pro' code not gpl licensed?

Right and again, GPL'd doesn't mean something is free like free beer. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

I think it is OK if I say "we" the Open Source devs (see LW's about box) of LimeWire are quite happy with the current model. We have the freedom to do whatever we want (as long as we don't violate the GPL or harm the network), they benefit from our ideas+impulses and in return they give us access to a professionally managed code base (which has the value of gold and I appreciate it).

Concerned:

I think rkapsi pretty much covered all of your concerns one-by-one (well done, rkapsi!), but all of your frustration could have been allieviated by reading the stickys and the wealth of information at the top of the forums to start.

I have been using LW for almost a year now and I willingly upgraded to Pro because if I interpreted it correctly, it's actually a donation to help support the technology, a technology that I strongly believe in. Everybody's got their somethin' and not every thing is for everybody, but to me it seems your only gripe is the pop-up, which is easily rid of by a single-click. It's a straight-forward solicitation for support, you watch TV and are bombarded with images from sponsors (commercials), even public TV (at least in the US) has advertising. So I ask, what's the difference?

I do hope you're not offended by anything I have just said, if so, all apologies, just trying to pose an alternate view, which by your post, you sound like a resonable person with an open mind...or you're with the RIAA! (That was my attempt at sarcasm!!)

One Love,

Wild Peach

I should first say that while I did search before posting, I did not check the stickies in all the forums. If my questions can be answered by a sticky I would very much like to see it. So far my questions have only been mocked, and I do not appreciate that. I realize that my attitude may be sour, but my questions are quite perfectly reasonable, with one unfortunate and regretted exception.

I cannot decide whether to enraged at the suggestion that Linux is shareware, or amused at the thought of Red Hat Enterprise being open source. I think I am a bit of both. That is nothing short of absurd.

You have linked to a good read. I am sorry to see that you've misread it, though it may not be all your fault. The aim of that article was to define 'free software', however that is going about it backwards, and while it does work it is not the easiest way. Since we already know that Limewire is licensed under the GPL, we need only explain software that matches that description. That is done here. -> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html If you read that correctly, you should see that licensing something under the GPL does in fact make it 'free speech.'

When I spoke of profits, I was talking about the money paid for the pro version. However, as you have said that the pro version is not open source, clearly this is irrelevant as I cannot help develop it.

I belive you have answered my question about the use of the funds satisfactorily. I regret my oversight of the two posted links, and the likely possibility that I asked that question in more of a jousting attitude than in good sense.

Again, for emphasis, GPL'd does indeed mean that something is both free beer and free speech. It is completely and utterly free in all respects. There is no way around it except to avoid distributing software under the GPL.

Upon going back to my first post to find my other questions, I noticed that they should have been easier to find. Forgive me for writing such a large and messy paragraph. If I could go back and edit it, I would. These questions I consider every bit as important as the others, for it is these matters which keep me from using Limewire.

In addition, after hearing that the pro version is not licensed under the GPL, I have another serious concern. I will again use this article for aid. -> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html I encourage anyone to read that entire article if they have the time, however, only the first line is absolutely necessary if you trust me to appropriately take it out of context. Below I have quoted the first line plus one other statement.

Here we see the beauty of the GNU GPL. Anyone taking a piece of code licensed under the GPL and charging for a modified or appended version of that code is in violation of the license agreement. Nobody is exempt from this - not even those who wrote the original code. If the pro version of Limewire is a modified version of the basic version which is licensed under the GNU GPL, then those responsible for charging for it's distribution are in violation of the GNU GPL. Since I cannot logically claim to truly know, I will ask: Is Limewire 'pro' a modified version of the Limewire 'basic' code, and is this not a violation of the GNU GPL? I hope everyone will understand that I am not against supporting such responsible persons for their effort. However, I am a firm believer in donations and believe they are the solution in situations such as that which this may or may not turn out to be.

For anyone following along, I provide the following reading material for further understanding. This is the story of a case where a company took and modified a piece of software which was licensed under the GPL. They then offered this code, along with technical support, for a fee. That was enough to cause disturbance, but then they even attempted to stop 'piracy' of their modified code, and that is when the fun began. Here is the story as recorded by one offering this 'pirated' code for download. (notice that to this day nobody has been successful in requiring him to cease distribution) -> http://wrt54g.thermoman.de/

In response to Wild Peach:

The difference is little to none. I do not complain that the popup exists. I am only voicing my natural reaction to it and questioning whether it may hold deeper implications. Such actions as this and the 'marketing gimmicks' I spoke of earlier are almost uniquely characteristic of the 'foul' shareware that many of us know and dispise. I wish only to be reassured that any sour implications are unfortunate misperceptions. The popup requires no explanation, of course. The marketing gimmicks, however, necessitate one. One simply cannot make such claims without explaining the technical details of how they are achieved and expect folks like myself to bite.

PS: Please forgive any typos I may have made. I do not have the luxury of editing my posts as you do. While that doesn't so much bother me, it can make a complete *** of me given the right set of circumstances.

0) I did not say Linux is shareware, I meant it is GPL and you can buy it.

1) LimeWire PRO is LimeWire BASIC compiled with different flags.

2) I said nowhere GPL isn't 'free speech' (I said it's not 'free beer')

3) As you say yourself nobody can stop you from compiling a PRO version and giving it away for free. This is a consequence of the GPL and nobody will stop you.

Concerned:

You make an eloquent and well written concern (we all make typos, I'd hate to have you as an editor, your spelling was outstanding!!!) which makes your posts a joy to read. Although I am not a technically advanced as some of my peers here on the forum and cannot offer a relatively intellegent arguement of the pros and cons of the technology, I can say that my experience with LW has been positive and that the "marketing gimmicks" that often appear at other sites, are simply not the case here. Money ain't everything, but it's definitely makes living in this world a hell of a lot easier and I think the creators of this site shouldn't be seen as sell-outs or devious little capitalists because they ask for a donation to keep the site going.

I hope you'll reconsider your initial impressions and I look forward to seeing you around the forums...a person with such an intelligent, open mind simply has to hang around!!!

Wild Peach

i think this can sum up the whole situation:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....eGPLAllowMoney
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....rdOtherLicense
"check the faq ma'am"

btw, it is capitalism and running at its best! thats what keeps our great country moving. and i believe in capitalism, but i dont believe in the corruption of that power that this territory comes with.

My question is if it's legal to distribute the pro version to others? It's open source but then I feel it unethical to share a software that is intended for financial support. I have been a pro user for a couple years and have always backed the software and when someone aksed me for a copy I old them they should buy and support the same as I do or use the free version like many. However, I got into a debate over it since it's under the GPL that it's distributable within means and compliance with the PLL licensing. I may be wrong but I thought the GPL granted this right and I find it very difficult myself to pay for something just to give it away free and the fact that many can just share and download it off the server themselves in a p2p environment.

yes, if you read the GPL FAQ, it clearly states:

please understand the context of the word "free" before making assesments. yes the whole LimeWire project including the pro version is GPL'ed and it also means that YOU can even sell it yourself to anyone or freely give it away to anyone. but you MUST appease access to the source upon request.

[edit] and about the ethics, the payment that limewire asks for is to help finance the whole project. even though it may be ethically wrong to give away a fair bargain program for free, its also not illegal to do per the GPL.[/edit]