Search Results

Search found 537 results on 22 pages for 'gpl'.

Page 1/22 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• GPL code allowing non-GPL local copies of nondistributed code

  - by Jason Posit

  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 them by offering their services to their clients while keeping their GPL-based code closed source at the same time. (cf. Chapter 17 of WordPress Plugin Development by Wrox Press). I've never realized this, but essentially, by putting restrictions on redistributable code the GPL says nothing about what can and cannot be done with code which is kept private in terms of the licensing model. Have I understood this correctly?

  Read the article

• "Integratable" but not "integrated" GPL

  - by mgibsonbr

  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 no code is released to the public. That made me wonder: what if I don't redistribute the GPL code at all? If my program can work alone (reinforcing my claim that it's not a derivative work), but can do more if the GPL library is also installed to the system, couldn't I just release my application under my own licensing terms - without including any GPL code - and post instructions for anyone interested to separately download the GPL code and do the integration "for their private use"? I know it's against the "spirit" of the GPL, so I'm not suggesting it's a good idea to do that. However, this question is bugging me for some time, specially because of the implications of each answer: If I can not do that: can I write another library with a similar API? (before answering "of course you can", remember that having the same API would allow both libraries to be swapped at will by my customers - so I don't need to work too hard on my library or even make it "working". How to determine if a similar program is just similar or is a circumvention attempt?) If I can do that: can I also be paid to perform the service of installing the GPL library for a customer? (I sell them my program, install it in their machines, download and install the GPL library too) can I put the two programs in the same website? In two different CDs? (I know I said the idea was not to redistribute the GPL code, I'm just thinking in excuses people could use to claim they're not redistributing even though they are)

  Read the article

• GPL: does one line of GPLed code make program a "derived work"

  - by SigTerm

  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 you ever decide to publish the software and make it available to the public. The person in question claims that it is "absurd" (I know it is, but AFAIK that's how GPL works), it is "redefining the copyright", "GPL has no power to do that", and claiming that "one line of GPLed code makes you release the whole thing under GPL" is absurd. That contradicts the GPL FAQ. Can somebody clarify the situation? Am I right in assumption that copying even smallest subroutine from GPL program into your code automatically makes your program a "derived work" which means you are obliged to release it under GPL license if you publish it?

  Read the article

• Can I use GPL software in a commercial application

  - by Petah

  I have 3 questions about the GPL here: If I use GPL software in my application, but don't modify or distribute it, do I have to release my application under the GPL? What if I modify some software that my application uses. Then do I have to release my application under the GPL, or can I just supply the modified software under the GPLs terms. And what if I use GPL software, but don't modify it, can I distribute it with my application? My case in point is, I have a PHP framework which I use the GeSHi library to highlight some output. Because GeSHi is GPL, does my framework have to be GPL? Can I modify GeSHi for particular use cases of my application if I supply the modifications back to the GeSHi maintainers? Can I redistribute my framework with GeSHi?

  Read the article

• Can I use GPL software in a commercial application

  - by Petah

  I have 3 questions about the GPL here: If I use GPL software in my application, but don't modify or distribute it, do I have to release my application under the GPL? What if I modify some software that my application uses. Then do I have to release my application under the GPL, or can I just supply the modified software under the GPLs terms. And what if I use GPL software, but don't modify it, can I distribute it with my application? My case in point is, I have a PHP framework which I use the GeSHi library to highlight some output. Because GeSHi is GPL, does my framework have to be GPL? Can I modify GeSHi for particular use cases of my application if I supply the modifications back to the GeSHi maintainers? Can I redistribute my framework with GeSHi?

  Read the article

• GPL vs plugin interfaces not designed with a specific application in mind

  - by Kristóf Marussy

  I am not seeking or in need of legal advice, but an interesting though experiment came to my mind. Imagine the following situtation (I cannot really think about a concrete example and I am unsure if a real manifestation even exists): there is a free (libre) api A licensed under some permissive license or even LGPL. Non-free application B implements this api in order host plugins, but there are other free software doing the same thing. Moreover, there is plugin C acting as a plugin under api A. It links to library D, that is under GPL, so C is also under GPL. Plugins using A are loaded into hosts via a dlopen-like mechanism and use complex data structure for host-plugin communication. Neither B nor C distribute any files that may be required for A to function properly (like headers containing the structure definitions of A or dynamic libraries containing helper functions for A written by the authors of A), but such things may exist. Now some user installs application B and plugin C on his machine, along with anything that may be required for api A to function properly. Then he proceeds and loads C into B and creates some intellectual property with B which is not a piece of software. Did a GPL violation happend at some point, and if so, who violated GPL and why? The authors of C violate D's license by making C possible to be used in non-free host B? This is a possibility because they can't give and exception of GPL (like one described in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF or http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface) due to D's license terms. The authors of B violate C's and D's license by making C possible to be loaded in B? This is a possibility because http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins disallows the mechanisms A uses for communitation between the free and non-free modules. The authors of A, because the api may be used (and in this case, was used) for communication between GPL'd and non-free software. This would be extremely absurd. The user, because at the moment of loading B into C, he made a derived work of C. I think this is impossible, because he does not distribute it. But would the situation change is he decided to release a configuration file of B which makes B load C as a plugin? Nobody, because A counts as a 'system library', and both B and C directly interact only with A, not eachother. In a sane world, this would happen... A concrete example of A could be some kind of audio (think LADSPA) or image processing api. However, I could find no such interface (that is free software, generic and is also implemented by commercial tools). A real-world example could also be quite enlightening.

  Read the article

• Relicense BSD 2/3-clause code to GPL

  - by Brecht Machiels

  Suppose I release some source code under the new BSD license. Is it allowed for someone else to take this code, make modifications to it and distribute it under the terms of the GPL? From Wikipedia: Many of the most common free software licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, BSD licenses (in the current 2-clause form), and the LGPL, are "GPL-compatible". That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict (the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole). However, some free/open source software licenses are not GPL-compatible. I'm assuming this implies that one can relicense new-BSD licensed code to GPL?

  Read the article

• Does a code inherit GNU GPL if it just link to GPL librrary?

  - by user14284

  Sorry for bad English. Suppose there is a library xxx under GNU GPL, that provide a function yyy. Suppose my code links to the library and use this function. Does my code inherit GPL license? IANAL, but my thoughts are conflicting: On other hand, my code is derivative from the library, so it should inherit GPL. On other hand, my code just use link to the xxx. Maybe there are other libraries, that has the same interface (particularly, they provide yyy function with same functionality, but different implementation). My code may link to any. My code really doesn't directly derived from xxx, it just use its interface. So, my code shouldn't inherit GPL. I'm confused. ADDED. The question is absolutely abstract. I don't mean any concrete GPL library.

  Read the article

• Does a code inherit GNU GPL if it just link to GPL library?

  - by user14284

  Sorry for bad English. Suppose there is a library xxx under GNU GPL, that provide a function yyy. Suppose my code links to the library and use this function. Does my code inherit GPL license? IANAL, but my thoughts are conflicting: On one hand, my code is derivative from the library, so it should inherit GPL. On other hand, my code just use link to the xxx. Maybe there are other libraries, that has the same interface (particularly, they provide yyy function with same functionality, but different implementation). My code may link to any. My code really doesn't directly derived from xxx, it just use its interface. So, my code shouldn't inherit GPL. I'm confused. ADDED. The question is absolutely abstract. I don't mean any concrete GPL library.

  Read the article

• How successful is GPL in reaching its goals?

  - by StasM

  There are, broadly, two types of FOSS licenses when it relates to commercial usage of the code - let's say the GPL-type and the BSD-type. The first is, broadly, restrictive about commercial usage (by usage I also mean modification and redistribution, as well as creating derived works, etc.) of the code under the license, and the second is much more permissive. As I understand, the idea behind GPL-type licenses is to encourage people to abandon the proprietary software model and instead convert to the FOSS code, and the license is the instrument to entice them to do so - i.e. "you can use this nice software, but only if you agree to come to our camp and play by our rules". What I want to ask is - was this strategy successful so far? I.e. are there any major achievements in the form of some big project going from closed to open because of GPL or some software being developed in the open only because GPL made it so? How big is the impact of this strategy - compared, say, to the world where everybody would have BSD-type licenses or release all open-source code under public domain? Note that I am not asking if FOSS model is successful - this is beyond question. What I am asking is if the specific way of enticing people to convert from proprietary to FOSS used by GPL-type and not used by BSD-type licenses was successful. I also don't ask about the merits of GPL itself as the license - just about the fact of its effectiveness.

  Read the article

• Licensing software that uses GPL code with licenses other than GPL

  - by swampsjohn

  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 use it with the GPL?

  Read the article

• Avoid GPL violation by moving library out of process

  - by Andrey

  Assume there is a library that is licensed under GPL. I want to use it is closed source project. I do following: Create small wrapper application around that GPL library that listens to socket, parse messages and call GPL library. Then returns results back. Release it's sources (to comply with GPL) Create client for this wrapper in my main application and don't release sources. I know that this adds huge overhead compared to static/dynamic linking, but I am interested in theoretical way.

  Read the article

• TotalPhase Aardvark driver's GPL license

  - by Philip

  I'm using an SPI host adapter for a project. The Aardvark from TotalPhase. And I did something crazy, I read that EULA license that everyone just clicks through. The driver installation license includes these bits: This driver installer package also includes a WIN32 driver that is entirely based on the libusb-win32 project (release 0.1.10.1). ... LICENSE: The software in this package is distributed under the following licenses: Driver: GNU General Public License (GPL) Library, Test Files: GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) Now, my understanding of of the GPL is that it's sticky and viral. If you include software then the whole project has to be released under the GPL (if you distribute it, you can do whatever you want with in-house projects). If the driver was like the library, and was licensed under the LGPL, it could be used by my closed source proprietary project, as long as it's source and license was passed along with it. But it's not, it's pure GPL. If I include this driver in my project and distribute it, am I required to release my project under the GPL?

  Read the article

• Avoid GPL violation by moving library out of process

  - by Andrey

  Assume there is a library that is licensed under GPL. I want to use it is closed source project. I do following: Create small wrapper application around that GPL library that listens to socket, parse messages and call GPL library. Then returns results back. Release it's sources (to comply with GPL) Create client for this wrapper in my main application and don't release sources. I know that this adds huge overhead compared to static/dynamic linking, but I am interested in theoretical way.

  Read the article

• Rewriting GPL code to change license

  - by I_like_traffic_lights

  I have found a GPL library (no dual license), which does exactly what I need. Unfortunately, the GPL license on the library is incompatible with the license of a different library I use. I have therefore decided to rewrite the GPL library, so the license can be changed. My question is: How extensive do the changes need to be to the library in order to be able to change the license? In other words, what is the cheapest way to do this?

  Read the article

• Incorporating GPL Code in my Open Source Project

  - by rutherford

  I have downloaded a currently inactive GPL project with a view to updating it and releasing the completed codebase as open source. I'm not really a fan of GPL though and would rather licence my project under BSD. What are my options? Is it just a case of keeping any existing non-touched code under the GPL and any updated stuff can be BSD (messy)? The source will essentially be the same codebase i.e. there is no logical separation between the two and they certainly can't be split into anything resembling different libraries. Are my only realistic options to either GPL the whole thing or seek the original author's permission to release everthing under BSD?

  Read the article

• SUN Java and GPL V2 licence issue for linked applications

  - by user255607

  I have recently noticed that the Sun Java code has been released as GPL V2 code (see Google code repo). Does that mean that all applications written in Java and linked to Sun APIs (beans, and so on) are also in GPL ? If we strictly follow the GPL then this should be the case (Libs should be in LGPL, not GPL if we want to build proprietary software on top of it). Is there another commercial licence which can avoid such an issue ? I cannot believe this is the case. There must be an explanation on this. Regards, Apple92

  Read the article

• GPLv2 - Multiple AI chess engines to bypass GPL

  - by Dogbert

  I have gone through a number of GPL-related questions, the most recent being this one: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3248823/legal-question-about-the-gpl-license-net-dlls/3249001#3249001 I'm trying to see how this would work, so bear with me. I have a simple GUI interface for a game of Chess. It essentially can send/receive commands to/from an external chess engine (ie: Tong, Fruit, etc). The application/GUI is similar in nature to XBoard ( http://www.gnu.org/software/xboard/ ), but was independently designed. After going through a number of threads on this topic, it seems that the FSF considers dynamically linking against a GPLv2 library as a derivative work, and that by doing so, the GPLv2 extends to my proprietary code, and I must release the source to my entire project. Other legal precedents indicate the opposite, and that dynamic linking doesn't cause the "viral" effect of the GPL to propagate to my proprietary code. Since there is no official consensus that can give a "hard-and-fast" answer to the dynamic linking question, would this be an acceptable alternative: I build my chess GUI so that it sends/receives the chess engine AI logic as text commands from an external interface library that I write The interface library I wrote itself is then released under the GPL The interface library is only used to communicate via a generic text pipe to external command-line chess engines The chess engine itself would be built as a command-line utility rather than as a library of any sort, and just sends strings in the Universal Chess Interface of Chess Engine Communication Protocol ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_Engine_Communication_Protocol ) format. The one "gotcha" is that the interface library should not be specific to one single GPL'ed chess engine, otherwise the entire GUI would be "entirely dependent" on it. So, I just make my interface library so that it is able to connect to any command-line chess engine that uses a specific format, rather than just one unique engine. I could then include pre-built command-line-app versions of any of the chess engines I'm using. Would that sort of approach allow me to do the following: NOT release the source for my UI Release the source of the interface library I built (if necessary) Use one or more chess engines and bundle them as external command-line utilities that ship with a binary version of my UI Thank you.

  Read the article

• GPL - what is distribution?

  - by Martin Beckett

  An interesting point came up on another thread about alleged misappropriation of a GPL project. In this case the enterprise software was used by some large companies who essentially took the code, changed the name, removed the GPL notices and used the result. The point was - if the company did this and only used the software internally then there isn't any distribution and that's perfectly legal under GPL. Modifications by their own employees for internal use would also be allowed. So At what point does it become a distribution? Presumably if they brought in outside contractors under 'work for hire' their modifications would also be internal and so not a distribution. If they hired an external software outfit to do modifications and those changes were only used internally by the company - would those changes be distributed? Does the GPL apply to the client or to the external developers? If the company then give the result to another department, another business unit, another company? What if the other company is a wholly owned subsidiary? ps. yes I know the answer is ask a lawyer. But all the discussion I have seen over GPL2/GPL3 distribution has been about webservices - not about internal use.

  Read the article

• Correct way to sell commercial product with GPL small scripts in it

  - by Victor

  I'm developing a commercial cms. I'm going to sell this cms. I use jQuery, also I use date and time picker jQuery plugin in my cms, I can say this is just a 1% of my big script, I don't want sell my whole program as GPL because of these two small integrations (jQuery and DateTime picker). Please ask on these questions: I'm worry about license issue. What is the best way to sell my product(licensing type)? Is there any way to provide some partial licenses? I mean just add small notification in my license that the jQuery and The DateTime picker is still in GPL, but other part of this CMS has commercial license? If there isn't any way to sell commercial product as close source with GPL small parts, what is the most strong license for selling my product to keep it safe? Please sorry for my English

  Read the article

• What license is the GPL License licensed under?

  - by IQAndreas

  The actual GPL License (that is, the text that contains the words "The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed...") is a document; I would assume therefore that it is under some sort of copyright? What license is this license licensed under? That is, if I were to include the body of the GPL License in my own projects (and perhaps create a derivative work) what limitations am I under?

  Read the article

• Proper attribution of derived work in a GPL project

  - by Anton Gogolev

  This is a continuation of me rewriting GPL project. What will be the correct way of attributing my project as being a derivative of some other GPL-licensed project? So far I came up with: HgSharp Original Copyright Matt Mackall <[email protected]> and contributors. The following code is a derivative work of the code from the Mercurial project, which is licensed GPLv2. This code therefore is also licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License, verison 2. For information on the license of this code when distributed with and used in conjunction with the other modules in the HgSharp project, please see the root-level COPYING file. Copyright 2011-2012 Anton Gogolev <[email protected]>

  Read the article

• Releasing a project under GPL v2 or later without the source code of libraries

  - by Luciano Silveira

  I wrote a system in Java that I want to release under the terms of GPL v2 or later. I've used Apache Maven to deal with all the dependencies of the system, so I don't have the source code of any of the libraries used. I've already checked, all the libraries were released under GPL-compatible licenses (Apache v2, 3-clause BSD, MIT, LGPL v2 and v2.1). I have 3 questions about this scenario: 1) Can I release a package with only the binaries of code I wrote, not including the libraries, and distribute only the source code I wrote? 2) Can I release a package with all the binaries, including the libraries, and distribute only the source code I wrote? 3) Can I release a package with all the binaries, including the libraries, and distribute only the source code I wrote plus the source code of the libraries licensed under the LGPL license?

  Read the article

• sell applications that run only on a GPL v2 Server

  - by gadri mabrouk

  I have been testing Pentaho BI server community edition, and after reading their licensing terms I found out that the community edition is under GPLv2. As you may know the server is intended to host different types of files and applications (like reports, olap cubes,etc...) My question is : are we allowed to sell applications that run on the GPLv2 server ? (we will maybe modify the server source code a bit but we won't charge it to our clients. thus the modified GPL server will be just an execution environment or a container for the reports and applications that we intend to sell) ? this suggests that our clients must install the GPL v2 edition first and then buy from us the reports that work on it but not their source code. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Commercial product using a GPL OS

  - by pfried

  we are planning to create a commercial product. The product consists of come MCUs and a small computer (we are developping on a raspberry pi at the moment). The computer needs an operating system as we would like keep things like WLAN and booting as simple as possible. We create some software running on this computer (node.js application). The most operating systems like Arch Linux are licenced under the GPL. The product we would sell contains the computer with preinstalled OS and software. This system operates as a central access point to MCU devices and is able to control them. We use other's software in our product. We do not modify their source code. The product (the computer part) consists of a computer, an OS and software we create. How does the use of an OS affect our own code (licence)? Is there a possibility of avoiding GPL for our own code? eg. shipping the software seperated? Are there any effects to other components of our product, eg. the MCU part? The node.js application delivers a WebApp to the client where it is executed. Are there any effects (As we would like to sell parts of the code as an additional App on the App Stores)? I know we make use of the work of the community and i respect this. The problem is: The software alone is kind of useless without the MCU devices. I do not expect a legal advice.

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >