Philip Philip 6, 25 25 silver badges 43 43 bronze badges. The reason you don't normally buy GPL is not because the source is always up-for-grabs, but because potential buyers don't have to buy copies from you, they can buy them from anyone who has the software.
You can sell the first copy, but then the GPL allows the buyer to give away or sell a million other copies. I just read the GPL FAQ, it seems to imply that you don't actually give out the source unless you are going to distribute it. This means for the first buyer, they still have to buy it in order for them to have access to the source. As CMCDragonkai noticed. You buy GPL software because authors are not obliged and do not publish the source code.
Distribution happens at the point of sale and this is when you get the source code. This answer is not correct. Potential buyers cannot get source code if authors do not distribute it. For commercial GPL products, the distribution happens at the point of sale.
Andy Yeah, they don't have to publish it for all, but they ARE obligated to hand out the source along with the software whenever it leaves their house. Like when the sell it to people. Who could then publish it, or undercut them, or whatever. There are the legal rules and then there are the obvious market forces.
I'd love to hear about commercial GPL'd product that try and charge people for the product itself. Philip Hi Philip, I think you can answer my question which is similar this question here. I am confused with GPL license. Show 1 more comment.
RKitty RKitty 1 1 silver badge 3 3 bronze badges. We don't want people to be able to sell the software, source nor binary. Doug Moore, then the GPL is not what you want. Addendum: you have to release the source for free to anyone who bought the software.
That, and you can't stop anyone from selling copies themselves. Add a comment. Trevor Powell Trevor Powell 1, 1 1 gold badge 9 9 silver badges 17 17 bronze badges. This is a scheme which among many others is used by oracle for berkeley db: Thus, the license depends on how a particular application that uses Berkeley DB is distributed to the public. One last thing to convince your team leader: Releasing code under the GPL leaves only the same opportunities for legal commercial gain as does publishing a journal article describing some method or process that can be exploited commercially.
Community Bot 1. What does he mean, "cannot be resold"? There are two interpretations, an economical one and a legal one. MSalters MSalters 8, 1 1 gold badge 18 18 silver badges 32 32 bronze badges. SO uses the CC license for this content but it can be used for any published medium. Todd Moses Todd Moses 1 1 silver badge 9 9 bronze badges. I had the same thought, but Creative Commons recommends against this: Can I use a Creative Commons license for software.
The people to whom you sold copies of GPL software are just as free as you are to make copies and sell them for whatever price they feel is right, including a price equal to zero. The same general conditions apply to other popular FOSS licenses.
OpenOffice, for example, is distributed under the Apache license. This means quoting from a resource link below that everybody can sell it via eBay or any other channel, for whatever price people are willing to pay, without any obligation to share their profits with the OpenOffice Community.
GPL and other FOSS licenses give everybody the right to "sell" software with the constraints above, for whatever price the market will bear. They do not, however, give anybody the right to fool customers or give them misleading information. They couldn't do it, even if those were good things. At the same time, in and by themselves, licenses can't protect you from certain abuses. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but here's an explanation that should be substantially correct.
Software licenses are applications of copyright. GPLv3 also allows developers to add local disclaimers, which also helps increasing its usage outside the US. The new language used in the GPLv3 establishes this even more clearly. There is, however, an issue with the original BSD license as it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL the requirement on advertisements of the program.
LGPL is used to license free software so that it can be incorporated into both free and proprietary software. You are only obliged to subject your modifications to the original free library to the LGPL.
Since the free library is always subject to the LGPL, it must be possible for any user of your software to modify, recompile or replace the free LGPL library and use its modified version with your software. You are also required to permit or note prevent reverse engineering of the work that uses the library in order to enable debugging when the LGPL library is modified replaced with later versions.
If a developer modifies a program released under the GPL, he is expected to release the modified program under the same license, but if this program runs on a server only, the developer is not really releasing it to the rest of the world. The AGPL covers this case. Under the AGPL, the developer must release the modified version of the program to everyone who uses the service.
So, these are ten of your top GPL License questions answered. If you modify this font, you may extend this exception to your version of the font, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. Templates are minor enough that it is not worth using copyleft to protect them. It is normally harmless to use copyleft on minor works, but templates are a special case, because they are combined with data provided by users of the application and the combination is distributed.
So, we recommend that you license your templates under simple permissive terms. Some templates make calls into JavaScript functions. Since Javascript is often non-trivial, it is worth copylefting. A line needs to be drawn between the JavaScript copylefted , and the user code usually under incompatible terms. As a special exception to the GPL, any HTML file which merely makes function calls to this code, and for that purpose includes it by reference shall be deemed a separate work for copyright law purposes.
In addition, the copyright holders of this code give you permission to combine this code with free software libraries that are released under the GNU LGPL. If you modify this code, you may extend this exception to your version of the code, but you are not obligated to do so.
Which programs you used to edit the source code, or to compile it, or study it, or record it, usually makes no difference for issues concerning the licensing of that source code. However, if you link nonfree libraries with the source code, that would be an issue you need to deal with. It would be useful to have translations of the GPL into languages other than English.
People have even written translations and sent them to us. But we have not dared to approve them as officially valid. That carries a risk so great we do not dare accept it. A legal document is in some ways like a program. Translating it is like translating a program from one language and operating system to another.
Only a lawyer skilled in both languages can do it—and even then, there is a risk of introducing a bug. If we were to approve, officially, a translation of the GPL, we would be giving everyone permission to do whatever the translation says they can do. If it is a completely accurate translation, that is fine.
But if there is an error in the translation, the results could be a disaster which we could not fix. If a program has a bug, we can release a new version, and eventually the old version will more or less disappear. But once we have given everyone permission to act according to a particular translation, we have no way of taking back that permission if we find, later on, that it had a bug. Helpful people sometimes offer to do the work of translation for us. If the problem were a matter of finding someone to do the work, this would solve it.
But the actual problem is the risk of error, and offering to do the work does not avoid the risk. We could not possibly authorize a translation written by a non-lawyer. Therefore, for the time being, we are not approving translations of the GPL as globally valid and binding. Instead, we are doing two things:. Referring people to unofficial translations. This means that we permit people to write translations of the GPL, but we don't approve them as legally valid and binding.
An unapproved translation has no legal force, and it should say so explicitly. It should be marked as follows:. To be completely sure of what is permitted, refer to the original GPL in English. But the unapproved translation can serve as a hint for how to understand the English GPL.
For many users, that is sufficient. However, businesses using GNU software in commercial activity, and people doing public ftp distribution, should need to check the real English GPL to make sure of what it permits.
We are considering the idea of publishing translations which are officially valid only for one country. This way, if there is a mistake, it will be limited to that country, and the damage will not be too great. It will still take considerable expertise and effort from a sympathetic and capable lawyer to make a translation, so we cannot promise any such translations soon.
When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is yes. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; the GPL doesn't restrict what tools you process the program with. The JNI or Java Native Interface is an example of such a facility; libraries that are accessed in this way are linked dynamically with the Java programs that call them. So if these facilities are released under a GPL-incompatible license, the situation is like linking in any other way with a GPL-incompatible library.
Which implies that:. Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders. Learn more about reporting GPL violations. Subclassing is creating a derivative work. In general, the answer is no—this is not a legal requirement. In specific, the answer depends on which libraries you want to use and what their licenses are.
These libraries can be used in nonfree programs; but in the case of the Lesser GPL, it does have some requirements you must follow. But these are normally the more specialized libraries, and you would not have had anything much like them on another platform, so you probably won't find yourself wanting to use these libraries for simple porting.
Of course, your software is not a contribution to our community if it is not free, and people who value their freedom will refuse to use it. Only people willing to give up their freedom will use your software, which means that it will effectively function as an inducement for people to lose their freedom. If you hope some day to look back on your career and feel that it has contributed to the growth of a good and free society, you need to make your software free.
The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. And outside of one special case , even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular. What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to.
Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy of the program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit. Such a license would be self-contradictory. Let's look at its implications for me as a user. Suppose I start with the original version call it version A , add some code let's imagine it is lines , and release that modified version call it B under the GPL.
So I or someone else can delete those lines, producing version C which has the same code as version A but is under the GPL. If you try to block that path, by saying explicitly in the license that I'm not allowed to reproduce something identical to version A under the GPL by deleting those lines from version B, in effect the license now says that I can't fully use version B in all the ways that the GPL permits.
In other words, the license does not in fact allow a user to release a modified version such as B under the GPL.
The GPL does not and cannot override local laws. US copyright law is not entirely clear on the point, but appears not to consider this distribution. If, in some country, this is considered distribution, and the subsidiary must receive the right to redistribute the program, that will not make a practical difference. The subsidiary is controlled by the parent company; rights or no rights, it won't redistribute the program unless the parent company decides to do so.
Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same. Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you.
You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software. The installer and the files it installs are separate works. As a result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software. This is not a violation of the GPL.
Those distributors almost all of whom are commercial businesses selling free software distributions and related services are trying to reduce their own legal risks, not to control your behavior.
Export control law in the United States might make them liable if they knowingly export software into certain countries, or if they give software to parties they know will make such exports. By asking for these statements from their customers and others to whom they distribute software, they protect themselves in the event they are later asked by regulatory authorities what they knew about where software they distributed was going to wind up.
They are not restricting what you can do with the software, only preventing themselves from being blamed with respect to anything you do. Because they are not placing additional restrictions on the software, they do not violate section 10 of GPLv3 or section 6 of GPLv2.
Not only are such laws incompatible with the general objective of software freedom, they achieve no reasonable governmental purpose, because free software is currently and should always be available from parties in almost every country, including countries that have no export control laws and which do not participate in US-led trade embargoes. Therefore, no country's government is actually deprived of free software by US export control laws, while no country's citizens should be deprived of free software, regardless of their governments' policies, as far as we are concerned.
Copies of all GPL-licensed software published by the FSF can be obtained from us without making any representation about where you live or what you intend to do. They have a right to choose to whom they distribute particular copies of free software; exercise of that right does not violate the GPL unless they add contractual restrictions beyond those permitted by the GPL.
In this scenario, the requirement to keep paying a fee limits the user's ability to run the program. This is an additional requirement on top of the GPL, and the license prohibits it. First, include the new version of the license in your package. Second, replace all your existing v2 license notices usually at the top of each file with the new recommended text available on the GNU licenses howto.
It's more future-proof because it no longer includes the FSF's postal mailing address. Of course, any descriptive text such as in a README which talks about the package's license should also be updated appropriately. Because GPLv2 was written before peer-to-peer distribution of software was common, it is difficult to meet its requirements when you share code this way. The best way to make sure you are in compliance when distributing GPLv2 object code on BitTorrent would be to include all the corresponding source in the same torrent, which is prohibitively expensive.
GPLv3 addresses this problem in two ways. First, people who download this torrent and send the data to others as part of that process are not required to do anything. Second, section 6 e of GPLv3 is designed to give distributors—people who initially seed torrents—a clear and straightforward way to provide the source, by telling recipients where it is available on a public network server.
This ensures that everyone who wants to get the source can do so, and it's almost no hassle for the distributor. Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software.
There are lots of different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the hardware checksums the software that is installed, and shuts down if it doesn't match an expected signature.
The manufacturers comply with GPLv2 by giving you the source code, but you still don't have the freedom to modify the software you're using. We call this practice tivoization. When people distribute User Products that include software under GPLv3, section 6 requires that they provide you with information necessary to modify that software.
User Products is a term specially defined in the license; examples of User Products include portable music players, digital video recorders, and home security systems. Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL. GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks. So, as an example, you can release a drawing of a physical object or circuit under the GPL. In many situations, copyright does not cover making physical hardware from a drawing.
In these situations, your license for the drawing simply can't exert any control over making or selling physical hardware, regardless of the license you use. When copyright does cover making hardware, for instance with IC masks, the GPL handles that case in a useful way. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function.
In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on the device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser a key for that instance. Companies distributing devices that include software under GPLv3 are at most required to provide the source and Installation Information for the software to people who possess a copy of the object code.
The voter who uses a voting machine like any other kiosk doesn't get possession of it, not even temporarily, so the voter also does not get possession of the binary software in it. Note, however, that voting is a very special case. Just because the software in a computer is free does not mean you can trust the computer for voting. We believe that computers cannot be trusted for voting. Voting should be done on paper. In effect, yes.
Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it. If the snippets are small enough that you can incorporate them under fair use or similar laws, then yes.
Otherwise, no. This means that all the permissions and conditions you have to convey source code also apply when you convey object code: you may charge a fee, you must keep copyright notices intact, and so on.
When you convey GPLed software, you must follow the terms and conditions of one particular version of the license. When you do so, that version defines the obligations you have. If users may also elect to use later versions of the GPL, that's merely an additional permission they have—it does not require you to fulfill the terms of the later version of the GPL as well.
Do not take this to mean that you can threaten the community with your patents. In many countries, distributing software under GPLv2 provides recipients with an implicit patent license to exercise their rights under the GPL. Even if it didn't, anyone considering enforcing their patents aggressively is an enemy of the community, and we will defend ourselves against such an attack.
Due to these differences, the two licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2. To cure a violation means to adjust your practices to comply with the requirements of the license. All you need to do is ensure that the Appropriate Legal Notices are readily available to the user in your interface. For example, if you have written an audio interface, you could include a command that reads the notices aloud.
As long as you're both using the software in your work at the company, rather than personally, then the answer is no.
The copies belong to the company, not to you or the coworker. This copying is propagation, not conveying, because the company is not making copies available to others. Just as devices do not need to be warranted if users modify the software inside them, you are not required to provide a warranty that covers all possible activities someone could undertake with GPLv3-covered software.
Early drafts of GPLv3 allowed licensors to add an Affero-like requirement to publish source in section 7.
However, some companies that develop and rely upon free software consider this requirement to be too burdensome. They want to avoid code with this requirement, and expressed concern about the administrative costs of checking code for this additional requirement.
By publishing the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a separate license, with provisions in it and GPLv3 to allow code under these licenses to link to each other, we accomplish all of our original goals while making it easier to determine which code has the source publication requirement. Over the years, we learned that some jurisdictions used this same word in their own copyright laws, but gave it different meanings. We invented these new terms to make our intent as clear as possible no matter where the license is interpreted.
They are not used in any copyright law in the world, and we provide their definitions directly in the license. No, because those two goals contradict each other. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user.
0コメント