Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 22:39:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net> To: Andrew <perl@ukrpost.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL, BSD, Artistic license Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0207012225020.13448-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207012057040.8271-100000@kramer.thekramers.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, 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 Andrew, have a look in the archives for this list. This has been discussed many times. But see my comments below too. > > available under GPL. The software package is fully functional and Why? > > 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)?? If you own the copyright, then you may choose to provide your commercial software. But note that if you have made it GPL'd, then someone may take your free "Lite" version to build their own version to compete with your commercial version. > > And now the same questions for BSD license. You can do with it as you want. You can sell the binary and don't have to provide the source. Anyways, since the code isn't based on any GPL'd (or LGPL'd) code, then the GPL doesn't matter. > 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. Depends on definition of "requires". If it uses the source then the viral nature takes over. But if is some build tool, then it doesn't matter. > Of course, since _all_ the source code of A is GPL, if B needs any part of > A to compile, B must be GPL. Not necessarily true. If the code had some prior license, you can always chop out that particular code again. (Just make sure it is documented and attributed correctly.) > 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. Many GPL lovers would disagree. (As with the Linux kernel, third-party, non-source-available, commercial modules are okay, because the copyright owner publically said this is okay in an archived email. It is not clear in the license included with the kernel source though.) These A's, B's and C's are confusing. I am tired from long day visiting San Juan Islands in Washington -- so maybe that is why :) Back to Andrew: Maybe consider using a short and simple license that is easy-to-understand and encourages others to want to use and help develop your code. Jeremy C. Reed http://www.reedmedia.net/ 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?Pine.LNX.4.43.0207012225020.13448-100000>