From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Jul 1 18:29:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6101937B401 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kramer.thekramers.net (dsl092-068-235.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.68.235]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD8743E0A for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:29:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from david@thekramers.net) Received: from localhost (david@localhost) by kramer.thekramers.net (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g621T5u09322; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:29:05 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:29:04 -0400 (EDT) From: David Kramer To: Andrew Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL, BSD, Artistic license In-Reply-To: <129139779161.20020701064556@ukrpost.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Andrew wrote: > Hello All. > > Can anyone explain me some points of GPL. What if I develop > application that doesn't use any GPL/LGPL libraries. I want to make it > available under GPL. The software package is fully functional and > distributed in source codes. I offer the software with support and > installation for some fee. There are optional add-ons: windows client > developed with another free compiler and web administration tool > developed in Perl (or PHP). I want to distribute those add-ons on > commercial basis only. The main package contains some code, required > for addons. Is that conforms to GPL (and Artistic license for Perl > module)? What if there will be two versions of main package available: > Lite (GPL, no code for addons) and Pro (commercial, addons and > appropriate code in main package included)?? > > And now the same questions for BSD license. My LUG had a meeting on this topic about a year ago. It's is open for interpretation, not cut and dry. My understanding of the situation, is that: A is GPL software B can be non-GPL if it calls A like an external runtime library or connects to it with TCP/IP or reads its output or anything like that. The problem is when B reqires A to compile. In this case B must be GPL. Of course, since _all_ the source code of A is GPL, if B needs any part of A to compile, B must be GPL. The way around this is to remove the common part into a third library, so A, which is GPL, requires C, which is not. That's fine. B, which is not GPL, requires c, which is also not. That's fine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DDDD David Kramer david@thekramers.net http://thekramers.net DK KD DKK D Python is executable pseudocode DK KD Perl is executable line noise DDDD Bruce Eckel To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message