license question?

Discussion in 'Java' started by Peter, Oct 13, 2004.

  1. Peter

    Peter Guest

    HI
    I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
    As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is(
    GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
    commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.

    Am i correct?

    thanks for your help
    from Peter ()
     
    Peter, Oct 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 13 Oct 2004 02:43:37 -0700, Peter <> wrote:

    > HI
    > I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
    > As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is(
    > GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
    > commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.
    >
    > Am i correct?


    Partially.

    You can include a LGPL library in your commercial prduct, and still
    distribute
    it closed-source, as long as you keep the library itself open. You can not
    include any full GPL product in an application that is not itself full GPL
    --

    Whom the gods wish to destroy they first call promising.
     
    Stefan Schulz, Oct 13, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter

    xarax Guest

    "Stefan Schulz" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:psfsyz4b3q1fd9p@localhost...
    > On 13 Oct 2004 02:43:37 -0700, Peter <> wrote:
    >
    > > HI
    > > I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
    > > As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is(
    > > GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
    > > commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.
    > >
    > > Am i correct?

    >
    > Partially.
    >
    > You can include a LGPL library in your commercial prduct, and still
    > distribute
    > it closed-source, as long as you keep the library itself open. You can not
    > include any full GPL product in an application that is not itself full GPL


    But be VERY CERTAIN that your usage of the LGPL library
    is only via dynamic calls. Static linking will contaminate
    your product and make it also LGPL.

    GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
    to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.

    I would suggest looking at other license models that
    are less socialistic in nature.
     
    xarax, Oct 13, 2004
    #3
  4. Hi,

    ["Followup-To:" to comp.lang.java.programmer]
    * Peter [13 Oct 2004 02:43:37 -0700]:
    > I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
    > As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is( GNU
    > GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
    > commerical product.


    Yes

    > And i am free to distribute it and modify it.


    Yes, as long as you follow the licencse conditions of the included
    software.

    As soon as you distributed your product you must obay the licence terms
    of the GNU GPL. If you distribute your product you must distribute it
    under the terms of the GNU GPL.

    J
     
    Joachim Bowman, Oct 13, 2004
    #4
  5. Peter

    Morten Alver Guest

    > GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
    > to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.


    Ah, so if I release a library under the LGPL, I am actually trying to
    convert your work (and everybody else's) into public domain? That's
    flamebait for two reasons.

    First, (L)GPL != public domain. This you are obviously aware of.

    Second, YOU choose whether and how to use the library. If you don't read
    the license before using the library, that's your problem (though the
    LGPL is a bit obscure, I'll grant you that).



    --
    Morten
     
    Morten Alver, Oct 13, 2004
    #5
  6. Peter

    Todd Knarr Guest

    In comp.os.linux.misc <> Peter <> wrote:
    > I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
    > As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is(
    > GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
    > commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.


    As long as you follow the license for the code you didn't develop
    yourself. In general, the GPL/LGPL conditions are:

    1. If all you're doing is including unmodified GPL/LGPL'd programs on
    the same media and using them in scripts or by executing them
    independently (eg. do a popen( "gpld-command") and read and parse it's
    output) then all you need to do is provide either the source to those
    programs or pointers to the standard sites the source can be downloaded
    from. Your program itself can be licensed under any terms.
    1a. If you modify those programs, you need to make the modified
    source code available either completely or as a patch to the
    unmodified source.
    2. If you dynamically link to an LGPL'd library, you need to provide
    the source code for it or pointers to the standard sites someone can
    download the source from. Your program itself can be licensed under
    any terms.
    2a. If you modify the code of the library in any way, you must make
    the modified source code available either completely or as a patch
    to the unmodified source code.
    3. If you statically link to an LGPL'd library (ie. physically incorporate
    it's object code into your program's executable) or link in any way
    to a GPL'd library, the result is according to the LGPL/GPL a
    derivative work under copyright law. Since the original authors have
    only licensed you to distribute their code in this way as part of a
    product licensed under the LGPL/GPL, you must either comply with
    that license and LGPL/GPL your program or be in violation of their
    copyright.
    4. If you actually physically copy LGPL/GPL'd source code into your
    program's source code, it's the same as if you'd written a book
    by copying wholesale a part of another book. Your work is a
    derivative work, and you must either comply with the license terms
    of the code you included and LGPL/GPL your work or cease using the
    LGPL/GPL'd code.

    IANAL, you'll want to pay a real attorney to evaluate it, but take note
    that quite a few companies (Linksys being a recent example) have looked
    at this after GPL'd code has been found in their products and not a one
    of them has felt they have enough of a leg to stand on to argue in court
    that they shouldn't be required to comply with the GPL.

    --
    All I want out of the Universe is 10 minutes with the source code and
    a quick recompile.
    -- unknown
     
    Todd Knarr, Oct 13, 2004
    #6
  7. In <cH9bd.3037$>, xarax:

    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
    > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441


    [Snip...]

    > GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
    > to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.


    Hi Flatfish. Wassamatta: 'lil ol Tux gonna take over Unca Bill's world?

    <PLONK>

    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
     
    Harold Stevens, Oct 13, 2004
    #7
  8. Peter

    xarax Guest

    "Morten Alver" <> wrote in message
    news:ckjatr$s38$...
    > > GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
    > > to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^

    >
    > Ah, so if I release a library under the LGPL, I am actually trying to
    > convert your work (and everybody else's) into public domain? That's
    > flamebait for two reasons.


    That may not be your intent, but it is the intent of [L]GPL.

    > First, (L)GPL != public domain. This you are obviously aware of.


    > Second, YOU choose whether and how to use the library. If you don't read
    > the license before using the library, that's your problem (though the
    > LGPL is a bit obscure, I'll grant you that).


    If you choose wrong, then your work, that you never
    intended to give away to the public, is given away
    to the public.
     
    xarax, Oct 13, 2004
    #8
  9. On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:45:15 GMT, xarax <> wrote:

    >> Ah, so if I release a library under the LGPL, I am actually trying to
    >> convert your work (and everybody else's) into public domain? That's
    >> flamebait for two reasons.

    >
    > That may not be your intent, but it is the intent of [L]GPL.
    >
    >> First, (L)GPL != public domain. This you are obviously aware of.


    [...]

    > If you choose wrong, then your work, that you never
    > intended to give away to the public, is given away
    > to the public.


    Please, do not feed the trolls.

    --

    Whom the gods wish to destroy they first call promising.
     
    Stefan Schulz, Oct 13, 2004
    #9
  10. Peter

    Oscar kind Guest

    xarax <> wrote:
    > GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
    > to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.


    This is completely false:
    1. The (L)GPL is not viral; it simply disallows using someones hard work
    for profit. It doesn't _fource_ you to do anything. Unlike for example
    software patents, that influence you without your knowledge, effort,
    etc.

    2. The (L)GPL is just as far removed from public domain as a closed-source
    licence. If what you say is true, you could just take (L)GPL'ed code
    and use it in a closed-source product. You can't, because the (L)GPL
    uses copyright law to defeat it.


    --
    Oscar Kind http://home.hccnet.nl/okind/
    Software Developer for contact information, see website

    PGP Key fingerprint: 91F3 6C72 F465 5E98 C246 61D9 2C32 8E24 097B B4E2
     
    Oscar kind, Oct 13, 2004
    #10
  11. "xarax" <> writes:

    > If you choose wrong, then your work, that you never
    > intended to give away to the public, is given away
    > to the public.


    Hardly.
    You may not distribute the LGPL/GPL code without permission
    from the copyright holder.
    If you accept the terms of the LGPL/GPL, you may distribute
    the code, provided that you also release your code under the
    same license (for LGPL, only if you linked your code to the
    LGPL library).

    The license claims that by distributing, you have accepted the
    license. I doubt that will hold in court (but IANAL). You could still
    claim to simply have distributed without permission, setting yourself
    up for a case of copyright infringment, but compared to releasing
    your own code, that might be preferable.

    /L
    --
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen -
    DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
    'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
     
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, Oct 13, 2004
    #11
  12. xarax () wrote:

    : "Morten Alver" <> wrote in message
    : news:ckjatr$s38$...
    : > > GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
    : > > to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.
    : ^^^^^^^^^^^

    : >
    : > Ah, so if I release a library under the LGPL, I am actually trying to
    : > convert your work (and everybody else's) into public domain? That's
    : > flamebait for two reasons.

    : That may not be your intent, but it is the intent of [L]GPL.

    : > First, (L)GPL != public domain. This you are obviously aware of.

    : > Second, YOU choose whether and how to use the library. If you don't read
    : > the license before using the library, that's your problem (though the
    : > LGPL is a bit obscure, I'll grant you that).

    : If you choose wrong, then your work, that you never
    : intended to give away to the public, is given away
    : to the public.

    That is not entirely true.

    You are only forced to give it away to those people to whom you
    distributed your product.

    Someone to whom you never provided your product cannot force you to
    provide it to them.
     
    Malcolm Dew-Jones, Oct 13, 2004
    #12
  13. In <>, on 10/13/2004
    at 02:43 AM, (Peter) said:

    > I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser
    >license. As my understanding, i can including those softwares which
    >is( GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
    >commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.


    The Devil is in the details. I'd suggest that you have your lawyer
    check your business plan for compliance with both licenses. In
    general, if you incorporate GPL code then you can only distribute
    under the GPL. If you link to LGPL code you are free to distribute.
    Linux has some special terms relative to drivers.

    I'm not sure what happens if you distribute separate files for GPL
    code but have an install utilities that links them with your code.

    --
    Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

    Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
    right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
    domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
    reply to
     
    Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, Oct 13, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <cH9bd.3037$> (Wed, 13
    Oct 2004 13:02:00 +0000), xarax wrote:

    > GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
    > to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.


    No, they aren't. Microsoft's Outhouse Excess has rotted your brain.
     
    Hamilcar Barca, Oct 14, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <cH9bd.3037$> (Wed, 13
    Oct 2004 13:02:00 +0000), xarax wrote:

    > GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
    > to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.


    No, they aren't. Microsoft's Outhouse Excess has rotted your brain.
     
    Hamilcar Barca, Oct 14, 2004
    #15
  16. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz () wrote:
    : In <>, on 10/13/2004
    : at 02:43 AM, (Peter) said:

    : > I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser
    : >license. As my understanding, i can including those softwares which
    : >is( GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
    : >commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.

    : The Devil is in the details. I'd suggest that you have your lawyer
    : check your business plan for compliance with both licenses. In
    : general, if you incorporate GPL code then you can only distribute
    : under the GPL. If you link to LGPL code you are free to distribute.
    : Linux has some special terms relative to drivers.

    : I'm not sure what happens if you distribute separate files for GPL
    : code but have an install utilities that links them with your code.

    I would be very careful of doing that. You would certainly want to be
    able to link to several alternative versions of the library, and make it
    the user's choice (and responsibility) to decide to which library they
    would link.
     
    Malcolm Dew-Jones, Oct 14, 2004
    #16
  17. Peter

    Peter Guest

    "xarax" <> wrote in message news:<cH9bd.3037$>...
    > "Stefan Schulz" <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:psfsyz4b3q1fd9p@localhost...
    > > On 13 Oct 2004 02:43:37 -0700, Peter <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > HI
    > > > I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
    > > > As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is(
    > > > GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
    > > > commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.
    > > >
    > > > Am i correct?

    > >
    > > Partially.
    > >
    > > You can include a LGPL library in your commercial prduct, and still
    > > distribute
    > > it closed-source, as long as you keep the library itself open. You can not
    > > include any full GPL product in an application that is not itself full GPL

    >
    > But be VERY CERTAIN that your usage of the LGPL library
    > is only via dynamic calls. Static linking will contaminate
    > your product and make it also LGPL.
    >
    > GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
    > to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.
    >
    > I would suggest looking at other license models that
    > are less socialistic in nature.



    Thanks for your reply first
    If my java program including a jar file, and calling the functions
    that in the jar file. It is a dynamic link or static link?

    thanks
    from Peter
     
    Peter, Oct 14, 2004
    #17
  18. Peter

    Peter Guest

    Todd Knarr <> wrote in message news:<o2bbd.72449$a85.38442@fed1read04>...
    > In comp.os.linux.misc <> Peter <> wrote:
    > > I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
    > > As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is(
    > > GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
    > > commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.

    >
    > As long as you follow the license for the code you didn't develop
    > yourself. In general, the GPL/LGPL conditions are:
    >
    > 1. If all you're doing is including unmodified GPL/LGPL'd programs on
    > the same media and using them in scripts or by executing them
    > independently (eg. do a popen( "gpld-command") and read and parse it's
    > output) then all you need to do is provide either the source to those
    > programs or pointers to the standard sites the source can be downloaded
    > from. Your program itself can be licensed under any terms.
    > 1a. If you modify those programs, you need to make the modified
    > source code available either completely or as a patch to the
    > unmodified source.
    > 2. If you dynamically link to an LGPL'd library, you need to provide
    > the source code for it or pointers to the standard sites someone can
    > download the source from. Your program itself can be licensed under
    > any terms.
    > 2a. If you modify the code of the library in any way, you must make
    > the modified source code available either completely or as a patch
    > to the unmodified source code.
    > 3. If you statically link to an LGPL'd library (ie. physically incorporate
    > it's object code into your program's executable) or link in any way
    > to a GPL'd library, the result is according to the LGPL/GPL a
    > derivative work under copyright law. Since the original authors have
    > only licensed you to distribute their code in this way as part of a
    > product licensed under the LGPL/GPL, you must either comply with
    > that license and LGPL/GPL your program or be in violation of their
    > copyright.
    > 4. If you actually physically copy LGPL/GPL'd source code into your
    > program's source code, it's the same as if you'd written a book
    > by copying wholesale a part of another book. Your work is a
    > derivative work, and you must either comply with the license terms
    > of the code you included and LGPL/GPL your work or cease using the
    > LGPL/GPL'd code.
    >
    > IANAL, you'll want to pay a real attorney to evaluate it, but take note
    > that quite a few companies (Linksys being a recent example) have looked
    > at this after GPL'd code has been found in their products and not a one
    > of them has felt they have enough of a leg to stand on to argue in court
    > that they shouldn't be required to comply with the GPL.


    really thanks for your explanation.
    So my company is ok to include GPL/LGPL product in our product, and
    we still can distribute our product in closed-source. But if i do
    that, the court still have arguement?

    thanks
    from Peter
     
    Peter, Oct 14, 2004
    #18
  19. Peter

    Peter Guest

    "Stefan Schulz" <> wrote in message news:<opsfsyz4b3q1fd9p@localhost>...
    > On 13 Oct 2004 02:43:37 -0700, Peter <> wrote:
    >
    > > HI
    > > I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
    > > As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is(
    > > GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
    > > commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.
    > >
    > > Am i correct?

    >
    > Partially.
    >
    > You can include a LGPL library in your commercial prduct, and still
    > distribute
    > it closed-source, as long as you keep the library itself open. You can not
    > include any full GPL product in an application that is not itself full GPL


    Hi
    In Todd Knarr's explanation, any company can include GPL product in
    their commerical product. But why you say we can't? I think we just
    need to keep those GPL products still be GPL is ok, not our product.
    Right?

    thanks
    from Peter
     
    Peter, Oct 14, 2004
    #19
  20. Peter

    Peter Guest

    Todd Knarr <> wrote in message news:<o2bbd.72449$a85.38442@fed1read04>...
    > In comp.os.linux.misc <> Peter <> wrote:
    > > I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
    > > As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is(
    > > GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
    > > commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.

    >
    > As long as you follow the license for the code you didn't develop
    > yourself. In general, the GPL/LGPL conditions are:
    >
    > 1. If all you're doing is including unmodified GPL/LGPL'd programs on
    > the same media and using them in scripts or by executing them
    > independently (eg. do a popen( "gpld-command") and read and parse it's
    > output) then all you need to do is provide either the source to those
    > programs or pointers to the standard sites the source can be downloaded
    > from. Your program itself can be licensed under any terms.
    > 1a. If you modify those programs, you need to make the modified
    > source code available either completely or as a patch to the
    > unmodified source.
    > 2. If you dynamically link to an LGPL'd library, you need to provide
    > the source code for it or pointers to the standard sites someone can
    > download the source from. Your program itself can be licensed under
    > any terms.
    > 2a. If you modify the code of the library in any way, you must make
    > the modified source code available either completely or as a patch
    > to the unmodified source code.
    > 3. If you statically link to an LGPL'd library (ie. physically incorporate
    > it's object code into your program's executable) or link in any way
    > to a GPL'd library, the result is according to the LGPL/GPL a
    > derivative work under copyright law. Since the original authors have
    > only licensed you to distribute their code in this way as part of a
    > product licensed under the LGPL/GPL, you must either comply with
    > that license and LGPL/GPL your program or be in violation of their
    > copyright.
    > 4. If you actually physically copy LGPL/GPL'd source code into your
    > program's source code, it's the same as if you'd written a book
    > by copying wholesale a part of another book. Your work is a
    > derivative work, and you must either comply with the license terms
    > of the code you included and LGPL/GPL your work or cease using the
    > LGPL/GPL'd code.
    >
    > IANAL, you'll want to pay a real attorney to evaluate it, but take note
    > that quite a few companies (Linksys being a recent example) have looked
    > at this after GPL'd code has been found in their products and not a one
    > of them has felt they have enough of a leg to stand on to argue in court
    > that they shouldn't be required to comply with the GPL.


    Hi
    In my java program, i called some function from another jar
    file(GPL). And i will include that GPL jar file into my jar file. It
    is a static link or dynamic link?

    thanks
    from Peter
     
    Peter, Oct 14, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. José Vilaça

    .NET SDK License question

    José Vilaça, Aug 12, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,770
    Mattias Sjögren
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9l?=

    Export to excel license question

    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9l?=, Nov 21, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    402
    Scott Allen
    Nov 21, 2004
  3. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9l?=

    crystal reports .net license question

    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9l?=, Nov 21, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    425
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9l?=
    Nov 21, 2005
  4. Michael Foord

    Open Source License Question

    Michael Foord, Oct 27, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    767
    Andrew Dalke
    Oct 31, 2004
  5. Volker Grabsch
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    766
    Michael Hudson
    Jul 25, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page