Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 21:13:58 -0700 From: Lawrence Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net> To: David Kramer <david@thekramers.net> Cc: Andrew <perl@ukrpost.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL, BSD, Artistic license Message-ID: <3D212886.1080003@earthlink.net> References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207012057040.8271-100000@kramer.thekramers.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Kramer wrote: > 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. > Some things also to consider, no one really even knows if the GPL will truly stand up in court. So it may not even be enforceable<shrug> As for the BSDL. BSDL is very simple, its free to use, it just needs to retain the copyright clause. that is the BSDL'd code needs it. As for which is better heh, well that coms down to religion in many cases ;) HTH --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D212886.1080003>