Do you have to pay for GNU GPL software that is "for sale"?

Posted by DisgruntledGoat on Stack Overflow See other posts from Stack Overflow or by DisgruntledGoat
Published on 2009-11-17T15:31:42Z Indexed on 2010/05/13 18:04 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 162

Filed under:

gnu

|

gpl

|

free

|

legal

I've seen some software (a Joomla component, to be exact) for sale on a web site. The web site says it is licensed under the GNU GPL2. However it also says you need to pay for every site you use the software on (with bulk discounts).

I know it's perfectly acceptable to sell software under the GPL, however the license implies that the source code must be distributed at no cost.

So is this a legitimate use of the GPL, or is it violating the license? Is it legal to download the software for free (say, from Bittorrent) and use it as I wish?

© Stack Overflow or respective owner

Related posts about gnu

Apache segfault glibc segfault

as seen on Server Fault - Search for 'Server Fault'
I keep getting (about every 5-6 hours) this segfault in apache: [Tue Jun 26 12:43:10 2012] [notice] child pid 26810 exit signal Aborted (6) *** glibc detected *** /usr/sbin/apache2: free(): invalid pointer: 0xb68c2628 *** ======= Backtrace: ========= /lib/i386-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x6ff22)[0xb75aef22] /lib/i386-linux-gnu/libc… >>> More
Cannot SSH to ubuntu server - openssh server owner changed

as seen on Ask Ubuntu - Search for 'Ask Ubuntu'
I am using suPHP with Apache for virtual hosting but somewhere down the line my root ssh access is getting screwed up. I haven't been able to figure out why it is happening but eventually, my root user is not able to ssh to the server. I get this error: *** invalid open call: O_CREAT without mode… >>> More
ERROR: GNU libc not found!

as seen on Ask Ubuntu - Search for 'Ask Ubuntu'
While using make.sh command for toolchain, I encountered the following error: Checking for toolchain prerequisites Checking for GNU bash [ DONE ] Checking for GNU binutils [ DONE ] Checking for GNU bison [ DONE ] Checking for GNU bzip2 … >>> More
GNU/Linux and freedom: non-free software hidden in your GNU/Linux distribution

as seen on Internet.com - Search for 'Internet.com'
<b>Free Software Magazine:</b> "Most people with an interest in software freedom will turn to GNU/Linux as their operating system of choice. Few realize however, that the vast majority of GNU/Linux distros are not entirely free. Imagine migrating away from Windows, only to find that… >>> More
Binaries for gnu tar and gnu gzip

as seen on Super User - Search for 'Super User'
Hi guys, I would like to know where i can download the binaries for gnu tar and gnu gzip for various platforms ( aix64, hp64, hpia64, intel, linia32, linia64, linx64, solus64, solx64, winx64) Thanks, >>> More

Related posts about gpl

GPL code allowing non-GPL local copies of nondistributed code

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I have come across a book that claims that alterations and augmentations to GPL works can be kept close-source as long as these are not redistributed into the wild. Therefore, customizations of websites deriving from GPL packages need not be released under the GPL and developers can earn profit on… >>> More
Licensing software that uses GPL code with licenses other than GPL

as seen on Stack Overflow - Search for 'Stack Overflow'
Let's say I write some code, which we'll call X. It uses some GPL code, let's call it library Y. Clearly I would have to release X with a GPL license. That's fine. My question is, can I additionally release X under a license such as MIT, so that if someone only wants X but not Y they don't need to… >>> More
Does using GCC specific builtins qualify as incorporation within a project?

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I understand that linking to a program licensed under the GPL requires that you release the source of your program under the GPL as well, while the LGPL does not require this. The terminology of the (L)GPL is very clear about this. #include "gpl_program.h" means you'd have to license GPL, because… >>> More
"Integratable" but not "integrated" GPL

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
There has been much debate over whether or not merely linking to a piece of code makes it a derivative work. I know FSF says "yes", so according to them I can't dynamically link a non-GPL compatible program to a GPL library and distribute the whole. But I could do that for private use, as long as… >>> More
GPL: does one line of GPLed code make program a "derived work"

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I've recently run into some argument with a person that claims to be a lawyer (I have my suspicions about this not being completely true, though). As far as I know, copying even one line of code from GPLed program into proprietary body of code requires you to release the whole thing under GPL, if… >>> More