license question?

[Peter]

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 ([email protected])

 

[Stefan Schulz]

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

 

[xarax]

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.

 

[Joachim Bowman]

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

 

[Morten Alver]

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).

 

[Todd Knarr]

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.

 

[Harold Stevens]

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>

 

[xarax]

^^^^^^^^^^^


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.

 

[Stefan Schulz]

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.

 

[Oscar kind]

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.

 

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

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

 

[Malcolm Dew-Jones]

xarax ([email protected]) wrote:

: : > > 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.

 

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

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 (e-mail address removed)

 

[Hamilcar Barca]

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]

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.

 

[Malcolm Dew-Jones]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz ([email protected]) wrote:
: In <[email protected]>, on 10/13/2004
: at 02:43 AM, (e-mail address removed) (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.

 

[Peter]

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]

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]

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]

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