Re: [ossig] GPL & LGPL

[Colin Charles <byte@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 17:51, Imran William Smith wrote:

> > Actually I am trying to find a loop hole (if there is one) to use the GNU
> > tools to write my applications first without having to pay anyone and not
> > releasing my source code to my customer.  And afterwards using the money
> > generated I can buy other proprietary tools.
> > 
> Hehe, how to make yourself popular around here :)

Not necessary. Read:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCCanIUseGPLToolsForNF

Using gcc, vim, etc... to develop your program is fine. You don't need
to buy proprietary tools at all.

> > What if I can write my applications in such away that I segregate the files
> > which are linked to the GPL'd libraries with the core logic of the
> > application's workflow (which is does not link to any GPL'd library).  I
> > don't have to release all of the source code right?  I just release those
> > codes from which the GPL'd libraries are called.
> > 

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfLibraryIsGPL

If you're using a GPL library, your app has to become GPL - this is its
viral nature.

> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
> 
> I think there's a lot of discussion of this on various legal
> mailing lists.  There's some arguments related to the difference
> between static and dynamic linking.

Yes. This is where the idea of tainted kernel modules hitting a grey
area comes into play. Many manufacturers release binary only kernel
modules that hooks itself into the kernel as a loadable module. How
legal is this according to the GPL?

Not so it seems; but Linus and others seem to say its OK. RMS on the
other hand screams.

> Why don't you sell the software to your customer, and put it
> under the GPL as well?  You don't have to release it to
> anybody else - but the customer can if they wish.  Is that
> your worry?  If it's GPL, you can more easily tell the
> customer they have full source code access, yet you have the
> rights to go ahead and sell it again to somebody else :)

Or better still, make it under a nondisclosure agreement -
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDevelopChangesUnderNDA

This is how for example, Cisco or Nvidia release their closed source
binary drivers. They release everything to developers, make them sign
NDAs, and happily release these software packages. Granted, loading a
Cisco module taints the kernel, but its still "ok".

> Dinesh ... help me out here!  How do people like SuSE manage
> to have some parts of their products proprietary?  Clearly
> defined APIs, release as 2 components, 1 proprietary, 1 open
> source?  Make it client/server?

SuSe's covered by:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLInProprietarySystem

Better still, this White Box Enterprise Linux folk are happily rolling
off their distro based on Red Hat's EL 3, and RH's kindness of giving
away SRPMS. Its lucky that
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDistributeExtendedBinary
states that RH doesn't have to provide the srpms, but rather, just
pointers to patches that they've applied :P

Someone should get the GPL license itself and make little anchors in
them; it'll make life much easier to reference and will help IP lawyers
a lot more. Any bored volunteers? ;)
-- 
Colin Charles, byte@aeon.com.my
http://www.bytebot.net/
http://fedoranews.org/colin/fnu/ - Fedora News Updates


---------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: send mail to ossig-request@mncc.com.my
with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message