GPL License Question
-
only amongst the truly deluded.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Indeed - everything that open source hopes to acheive in terms of software quality could equally be done with "open test framework" software (i.e. anyone can submit any test and the software is tested against it with the results public) without the inherent devaluing of developers intellectual property.
'--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
-
What is SaaS? What if I just used a binary and didn't download the source code? Ahhh, software as a service - well, the web app that would be using the GPL'd code would only be available on the intranet, and nobody is charged for its use. Further, only users that have the appropriate account on the server will be able to use it, and none of them would be interested in th source code (assuming they know what "source code" is).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
the web app that would be using the GPL'd code would only be available on the intranet
My interpretation says thats ok. GPL is to prevent commercialization of an open source code base, hence being closed. IF there is no commercial factor, then u can use/modify it, as the final code will never be produced to the public.
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.77 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!^
New xacc.ide release RSS feed^**
-
Welcome to the world of 'free software means living in the gutter'
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
that's just retarded. RedHat, for one example, has 11 pages of job openings. i'm sure there are plenty of traditional software companies that would kill to have the resources available to hire 250 people.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
And living in a world of only closed source software means even less than this.
pdluke wrote:
And living in a world of only closed source software means even less than this.
Yeah... All those companies (Microsoft, Oracle, CA, etc.) that have been around for some time making money on so-called closed source for years before there was an real open source movement are just
STRUGGLINGnow... As well as the developers that work for those companies, I am sure... Does anyone here know of any $6-figure developers that are working on completely open-source projects for a completely open-source company? I do not... You will note that many companies that make money via open-source products have either dual-licensing (which usually costs more money than the normal OSS license), or make money on support. IMHO, OSS does not pay the bills just by itself. Just something to chew on... (Notes: I use various flavors of Linux with other OSS products like MySQL, Asterisk and LAMP setups, and have briefly metMaddogwhen he was still in the NH area and I was going to the LUG in the area.) Peace!-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
that's just retarded. RedHat, for one example, has 11 pages of job openings. i'm sure there are plenty of traditional software companies that would kill to have the resources available to hire 250 people.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Support contracts (or dual-licensing as with other OSS projects) at work... :) And I am sure that Microsoft can hire just as many (if not more) and considering that they are mostly "closed-source"... Peace!
-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
Yes. You also have to post nude pictures of yourself in suggestive positions on flickr. (hey, if Stallman enjoys it, so should you)
Software Zen:
delete this;Stallman... Geeze... I would bet that his over-zealousness and abrasive nature is one of the reasons the GNU movement is not more widely accepted. That man can be a bit of a PITA. Even
/.-ers, which are usually anti-MS and pro-OSS, can be split on how they feel about him. That whole Linux vs. GNU/Linux thing[^] put some people off that were just getting into Linux and the whole OSS movement (myself included - I feel it is just trying to use the Linux name to gain visibility). If F/OSS is that great, it does not need the Linux name to help it along. I would bet that OSS would be more widely considered (if not accepted) if you did not have RMS trying toshoveF/OSS down everyones throat. :/ Peace!-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
Stallman... Geeze... I would bet that his over-zealousness and abrasive nature is one of the reasons the GNU movement is not more widely accepted. That man can be a bit of a PITA. Even
/.-ers, which are usually anti-MS and pro-OSS, can be split on how they feel about him. That whole Linux vs. GNU/Linux thing[^] put some people off that were just getting into Linux and the whole OSS movement (myself included - I feel it is just trying to use the Linux name to gain visibility). If F/OSS is that great, it does not need the Linux name to help it along. I would bet that OSS would be more widely considered (if not accepted) if you did not have RMS trying toshoveF/OSS down everyones throat. :/ Peace!-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFilesStallman's an idiot. I find the idea that my source code should be free to whoever wants it ludicrous and offensive. I worked hard on it, and I expect to be compensated for it. The GPL is expressly designed to prevent that, and to make it easy for less-capable programmers to steal my work and claim it for their own.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
If I use GPL'd source code in my app, do I have to make the entire app available under the GPL, or just the code I used?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Just so everything is clear (the thread has run off a bit), yes, if you use GPL code in an application, you have to release the entire application under the GPL. This "viral" nature of it is a initial turn-off for lots of people, and why I first created the FSCL[^] some years ago back in my credit-where-credit-is-due years when I was writing articles for CG, CP and other sites. If you are using a library, or code that is normally used to build a library, it may be under the LGPL (GNU Library General Public License, although they now call it the lesser GPL to give it a negative connotation). The LGPL allows you to link the library into a non-open-source project and does not require you to place all of your code under the GPL. Note that if you make any changes to the library, you still have to release those changes to the public. Some other OSS projects have dual/multi-licensing, so that you can use the GPL version with code you plan to release under the GPL, or purchasing a "commercial" license that allows you to use it in a commercial project and not get involved with the GPL at all. Peace!
-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
Stallman's an idiot. I find the idea that my source code should be free to whoever wants it ludicrous and offensive. I worked hard on it, and I expect to be compensated for it. The GPL is expressly designed to prevent that, and to make it easy for less-capable programmers to steal my work and claim it for their own.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
The GPL is expressly designed to prevent that, and to make it easy for less-capable programmers to steal my work and claim it for their own
To be fair, I do not believe that the GPL was designed to do that, as many GNU proponents can be heard repeating the mantra "free as in speech, free as in speech," although it does leave a
largeopening for stuff like that to happen... I do agree with the first part of your post, however... :P Peace!-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
I'm afraid that in GPLv3 "free" is not just a monetary freedom - it is a human right. "Freedom of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and access to the source code" So - wrap the GPLd code in its own application and only access it as a service - you have to make the code of that service available but not anything that happens to use that service. It worked for Salesforce.com :-)
'--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
Man, I just HAD to check that one out, and smack my a$$ and call me Sally if it was not spot-on: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/the_gpl_and_sof_1.html[^]. All I can say is...
Wow! Peace!-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
the web app that would be using the GPL'd code would only be available on the intranet
My interpretation says thats ok. GPL is to prevent commercialization of an open source code base, hence being closed. IF there is no commercial factor, then u can use/modify it, as the final code will never be produced to the public.
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.77 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!^
New xacc.ide release RSS feed^**
leppie wrote:
IF there is no commercial factor, then u can use/modify it, as the final code will never be produced to the public.
I am not sure that is entirely true. If you create an application that uses GPL code, and you release it as Freeware (no commercial interest), I believe that you are still obligated to release the code under the GPL. One of the purposes of the GPL is to increase the quality of source code. So I believe that if your company takes some GPL code and improves its performance and stability, your company is still obligated to release those changes even if the project it is being used for gets canceled and never sees the light of day. Peace!
-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
If I use GPL'd source code in my app, do I have to make the entire app available under the GPL, or just the code I used?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
leppie wrote:
IF there is no commercial factor, then u can use/modify it, as the final code will never be produced to the public.
I am not sure that is entirely true. If you create an application that uses GPL code, and you release it as Freeware (no commercial interest), I believe that you are still obligated to release the code under the GPL. One of the purposes of the GPL is to increase the quality of source code. So I believe that if your company takes some GPL code and improves its performance and stability, your company is still obligated to release those changes even if the project it is being used for gets canceled and never sees the light of day. Peace!
-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFilesJames R. Twine wrote:
If you create an application that uses GPL code, and you release it as Freeware (no commercial interest), I believe that you are still obligated to release the code under the GPL.
I agree, given, you release it to the public, or in fact anyone else to use, then it should be under GPL. But an internal webapp?
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.77 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!^
New xacc.ide release RSS feed^**
-
Keep the GPL stuff as a separate module/library (including any interfaces) and that is the part you have to make available.
Visit http://www.readytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
I do not think it works that way, otherwise there would be no concerns about using GPL software at all - everyone would just use GPLed code it to create LIBs/DLLs link against them and go happily on their way not releasing their source code. Once something is released under the GPL, you cannot re-license it under a less-restrictive license. Peace!
-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
Man, I just HAD to check that one out, and smack my a$$ and call me Sally if it was not spot-on: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/the_gpl_and_sof_1.html[^]. All I can say is...
Wow! Peace!-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFilesSo using GPL code on a website is perfectly legal?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
James R. Twine wrote:
If you create an application that uses GPL code, and you release it as Freeware (no commercial interest), I believe that you are still obligated to release the code under the GPL.
I agree, given, you release it to the public, or in fact anyone else to use, then it should be under GPL. But an internal webapp?
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.77 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!^
New xacc.ide release RSS feed^**
It seems just being part of a web app means you don't need to make your own code available because by it's very nature, a web app *is* software as a service.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
James R. Twine wrote:
If you create an application that uses GPL code, and you release it as Freeware (no commercial interest), I believe that you are still obligated to release the code under the GPL.
I agree, given, you release it to the public, or in fact anyone else to use, then it should be under GPL. But an internal webapp?
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.77 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!^
New xacc.ide release RSS feed^**
Hmmm... Good question because it raises the concept of "distribution". Are you "distributing" the application when you make it available to internal users? Are you "distributing" it when you give it to your operations team to deploy on a web server? What about when you give it to your QA team for verification? Time to call a lawyer, methinks... Peace!
-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
So using GPL code on a website is perfectly legal?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I wish it were that simple - if the thing gets downloaded in any way then you are going to be bound by the GPL...so client side java or ActiveX ing would count. As O'Reilly points out the problem is that the license has not kept up with the delivery method so now it only covers what is installed, not what is used.
'--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
-
So using GPL code on a website is perfectly legal?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Depends on what you mean by "use", I think. But I see that the whole SAAS issue can be used/abused in many ways, and I am not educated enough in that area to render an informed opinion on it. That whole concept of "distribution" is a real hairy area. I do not think that most websites could be considered SAAS, however, otherwise open-source CMS projects and things like MySQL could be abused in many ways. Perhaps the web server itself, because it is the thing that is actually doing something, but not the content. I dunno... Thinking about it is making me itch in a bad place... Better to avoid the whole GPL thing entirely if you can! :) Peace!
-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
I wish it were that simple - if the thing gets downloaded in any way then you are going to be bound by the GPL...so client side java or ActiveX ing would count. As O'Reilly points out the problem is that the license has not kept up with the delivery method so now it only covers what is installed, not what is used.
'--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
Well, I'm talking about a .Net DLL which is server side only (unless I'm missing something).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001