R e: 1 day gnu, whole life gnu?

Discussion in 'Java' started by Peter, Jan 11, 2005.

  1. Peter

    Peter Guest

    If your program contain gnu code, it has to be gnu too. So if your
    later version(commerical license) contain any code from previous
    verion(gnu license), it has to be gnu too, right?

    Deploy you program both under gnu and commerical is possible? even
    can, it has to open source too, but you can charge it for money.

    thanks
    from Peter ()
    Peter, Jan 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter

    Mark Murphy Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > If your program contain gnu code, it has to be gnu too.


    This is FUD, often published by MS.

    If this was true then no SW running on Linux could be under a commercial
    license. Look around there are a number of applications that are.

    So if your
    > later version(commerical license) contain any code from previous
    > verion(gnu license), it has to be gnu too, right?


    NO, not from what I have read.

    >
    > Deploy you program both under gnu and commerical is possible? even
    > can, it has to open source too, but you can charge it for money.
    >
    > thanks
    > from Peter ()


    IAMAL But from what I have read if your program contains gnu/GPL, you
    can have the part you write under a commercial license. You just have to
    make the portion under gnu available to everyone. So as an example if I
    write an accounting application I can sell it under any license as long
    as I give credit and distribute the GPL and source or a link to such for
    JFreeChart if I choose to use it for charts.

    Mark
    Mark Murphy, Jan 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter

    Erwin Moller Guest

    Peter wrote:

    > If your program contain gnu code, it has to be gnu too. So if your
    > later version(commerical license) contain any code from previous
    > verion(gnu license), it has to be gnu too, right?
    >
    > Deploy you program both under gnu and commerical is possible? even
    > can, it has to open source too, but you can charge it for money.
    >
    > thanks
    > from Peter ()


    Hi Peter,

    Please read a few chapters here:

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html


    Regards,
    Erwin Moller
    Erwin Moller, Jan 11, 2005
    #3
  4. Peter

    Erwin Moller Guest

    Erwin Moller, Jan 11, 2005
    #4
  5. Peter wrote:

    > If your program contain gnu code, it has to be gnu too. So if your
    > later version(commerical license) contain any code from previous
    > verion(gnu license), it has to be gnu too, right?


    It depends what you mean by "contains". If you have taken source code
    from a program licensed to you under the GPL and incorporated it into
    your program, and you distribute the program then you must _either_
    license your program under the GPL _or_ obtain a new license to the
    borrowed code that permits you to include it in your product without
    GPLing the product. Such an alternative license may cost money where
    the GPL-licensed software might not have.

    Your program, on the other hand, can dynamically link to GPL'ed
    libraries without being GPL 'ed itself. You can even distribute the
    libraries with the program, so long as you license the libraries under
    the GPL.

    There are fine points, caveats, the LGPL, and other considerations, but
    those are some of the main points. If you want to be as certain as
    possible of being legal then you should consult an attorney.

    > Deploy you program both under gnu and commerical is possible? even
    > can, it has to open source too, but you can charge it for money.


    Yes, it is possible, and it is done. Typically the commercial license
    entitles licensees to support and/or other services that are not
    provided (free) to those licensing the software under the GPL.


    John Bollinger
    John C. Bollinger, Jan 11, 2005
    #5
  6. Peter

    Ray Ingles Guest

    In article <KDJEd.5145$>, Mark Murphy wrote:
    > Peter wrote:
    >> If your program contain gnu code, it has to be gnu too.

    >
    > This is FUD, often published by MS.


    Well, no. If you take some GNU code and use it in your program, then
    the entire program becomes covered by the GPL. You can do whatever you
    want on your own box, but if you distribute the program you have to do
    it on the GPL's terms. That's what allows you to copy the code in the
    first place. (You can't just take copyrighted code and do whatever you
    want with it, no matter whose code it is.)

    However, there are ways around this. If you just link to the code in
    a shared library, you're safe. See the GPL FAQ for details.

    > If this was true then no SW running on Linux could be under a commercial
    > license. Look around there are a number of applications that are.


    No, code running *on* Linux doesn't have to 'contain' GPL'd code.
    *That's* the FUD spread by MS. It's *copying* GPL code that puts a
    program under the GPL, not simply being near it or working with it.

    > So if your
    >> later version(commerical license) contain any code from previous
    >> verion(gnu license), it has to be gnu too, right?


    No. You hold the copyright to code you created. You are free to
    release it under whatever license you want. If you remove or replace
    the GPL code, you can release your code under whatever licence you
    want.

    Some programmers release code under both the GPL and BSD licenses.
    As the authors, that's their right. You choose which restrictions to
    abide by. Others offer both a GPL version and a commercial version
    (Bitkeeper and Sendmail come to mind).

    --
    Sincerely,

    Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317

    "You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day,
    no matter how rich you are." - Colonel Adolphus Busch
    Ray Ingles, Jan 11, 2005
    #6
  7. Peter

    Nigel Wade Guest

    Ray Ingles wrote:

    > In article <KDJEd.5145$>, Mark Murphy wrote:
    >> Peter wrote:
    >>> If your program contain gnu code, it has to be gnu too.

    >>
    >> This is FUD, often published by MS.

    >
    > Well, no. If you take some GNU code and use it in your program, then
    > the entire program becomes covered by the GPL. You can do whatever you
    > want on your own box, but if you distribute the program you have to do
    > it on the GPL's terms. That's what allows you to copy the code in the
    > first place. (You can't just take copyrighted code and do whatever you
    > want with it, no matter whose code it is.)
    >
    > However, there are ways around this. If you just link to the code in
    > a shared library, you're safe. See the GPL FAQ for details.


    This is what the FAQ says:

    "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that
    any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?

    Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library."


    And:

    "If I port my program to GNU/Linux, does that mean I have to release it as
    Free Software under the GPL or some other Free Software license?

    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. Most system libraries either use the GNU Lesser GPL, or
    use the GNU GPL plus an exception permitting linking the library with
    anything. These libraries can be used in non-free programs; but in the case
    of the Lesser GPL, it does have some requirements you must follow.

    Some libraries are released under the GNU GPL alone; you must use a
    GPL-compatible license to use those libraries. 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."

    Which again quite explicitly states that using a GPL'd library requires a
    GPL compatible license.


    Which part of the GPL/FAQ do you think says it's ok to link against a GPL
    library and not make your application GPL?


    --
    Nigel Wade, System Administrator, Space Plasma Physics Group,
    University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK
    E-mail :
    Phone : +44 (0)116 2523548, Fax : +44 (0)116 2523555
    Nigel Wade, Jan 11, 2005
    #7
  8. Peter

    Ray Ingles Guest

    In article <cs102l$6or$>, Nigel Wade wrote:
    > Ray Ingles wrote:
    >> However, there are ways around this. If you just link to the code in
    >> a shared library, you're safe. See the GPL FAQ for details.

    > Which part of the GPL/FAQ do you think says it's ok to link against a GPL
    > library and not make your application GPL?


    That was a mistake, you're right. I meant to refer to the LGPL in
    that part.

    --
    Sincerely,

    Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317

    "There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the term
    'intellectual property,' because information isn't transferred
    between brains: it's copied." - Charles Stross
    Ray Ingles, Jan 11, 2005
    #8
  9. Peter

    Mark Murphy Guest

    Ray Ingles wrote:
    > In article <KDJEd.5145$>, Mark Murphy wrote:
    >
    >>Peter wrote:
    >>
    >>>If your program contain gnu code, it has to be gnu too.

    >>
    >>This is FUD, often published by MS.

    >
    >
    > Well, no. If you take some GNU code and use it in your program, then
    > the entire program becomes covered by the GPL. You can do whatever you
    > want on your own box, but if you distribute the program you have to do
    > it on the GPL's terms. That's what allows you to copy the code in the
    > first place. (You can't just take copyrighted code and do whatever you
    > want with it, no matter whose code it is.)


    That's what I wanted to say but did it poorly, sorry if it did not come
    out right. Using GPL Librarys does not mean that your code must be GPL,
    but it does mean that you have follow disclosure responsibilities within
    the GPL for the Libraries. I always think of using GPL libraries and
    would never think of actually taking someones else code and coping it
    into mine, but that's just me. So maybe I was not clear.


    >
    >>If this was true then no SW running on Linux could be under a commercial
    >>license. Look around there are a number of applications that are.

    >
    >
    > No, code running *on* Linux doesn't have to 'contain' GPL'd code.
    > *That's* the FUD spread by MS. It's *copying* GPL code that puts a
    > program under the GPL, not simply being near it or working with it.
    >

    My point here is just like your statement above. A good number of
    applications on Linux need to use GPL code in Libraries, but as long as
    they follow the GPL for the librarys they can still sell THEIR code
    under their License.

    Mark
    Mark Murphy, Jan 12, 2005
    #9
  10. Nigel Wade wrote:

    >
    > This is what the FAQ says:
    >
    > "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that
    > any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
    >
    > Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library."


    That is FSF's position, but I find it extraordinary. IANAL, but I
    observe this from paragraph 0 of the terms and conditions of the GPL
    version 2: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
    are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." (That is,
    copying, distributing, or modifying the GPLed program or library.) In
    particular, the GPL explicitly does not address executing programs to
    which it applies. The GPL is based on copyright, so I think arguments
    which do not center on program source or object code (the entities that
    are actually copied, modified, and or distributed) are tenuous at best.


    John Bollinger
    John C. Bollinger, Jan 12, 2005
    #10
  11. John C. Bollinger wrote:

    > Nigel Wade wrote:
    >
    >> This is what the FAQ says:
    >> "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that
    >> any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
    >> Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library."

    >
    > That is FSF's position, but I find it extraordinary. IANAL, but I observe this
    > from paragraph 0 of the terms and conditions of the GPL version 2: "Activities
    > other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this
    > License; they are outside its scope." (That is, copying, distributing, or
    > modifying the GPLed program or library.) In particular, the GPL explicitly does
    > not address executing programs to which it applies. The GPL is based on
    > copyright, so I think arguments which do not center on program source or object
    > code (the entities that are actually copied, modified, and or distributed) are
    > tenuous at best.


    But to execute a GPL'ed binary, it must be copied (page by page) from
    persistent storage to RAM (and then again from RAM into the cache and
    into the CPU). Granted, the copy is made _by_ your computer, but it is
    the result of a command given directly or indirectly by you.
    --
    Francis Litterio
    franl <at> world . std . com
    Francis Litterio, Jan 12, 2005
    #11
  12. Francis Litterio wrote:
    > John C. Bollinger wrote:


    >> The GPL is based on
    >>copyright, so I think arguments which do not center on program source or object
    >>code (the entities that are actually copied, modified, and or distributed) are
    >>tenuous at best.

    >
    >
    > But to execute a GPL'ed binary, it must be copied (page by page) from
    > persistent storage to RAM (and then again from RAM into the cache and
    > into the CPU). Granted, the copy is made _by_ your computer, but it is
    > the result of a command given directly or indirectly by you.


    A judge might buy that, but I wouldn't want to bet my business model on
    it. Or against it. That's why I advised consulting an attorney.


    John Bollinger
    John C. Bollinger, Jan 12, 2005
    #12
  13. Peter

    Chris Smith Guest

    John C. Bollinger <> wrote:
    > That is FSF's position, but I find it extraordinary.


    I also find it interesting that this hasn't always been the FSF's
    position. At some point, at about the same time that the LGPL was
    renamed from the "Library GPL" to the "Lesser GPL", someone also scoured
    over the FSF web site and removed all occurrences of the words which
    used to be there, which essentially said this: the FSF doesn't think
    that the GPL prevents linking a library from commercial code, but we are
    providing the LGPL just to pacify certain people who are concerned about
    the GPL wording.

    I fear that this change of position came, not from any actual change to
    the best available legal interpretations of the GPL, but rather from
    wishful thinking on the part of subscribers to certain ideologies who
    want to change history and pretend that the GPL has always meant
    something different. Two perspectives in particular support that
    change: the FSF position, that as much software should be forced under
    free software licenses as possible; and the MySQL position, that someone
    ought to be able to sell commercial software and still get good press
    for distributing it under the GPL.

    The real problem here is not that the meaning of the license has
    effectively changed for new authors who deliberately choose it -- they
    can do what they like, although I still find it sneaky that the FSF
    built up popularity under one license, and then quietly misappropriated
    that public support in favor of completely different licensing terms.
    However, the real problem that a huge heap of code that was written and
    released under certain conditions by free software authors for the past
    several decades now de facto has had certain restrictions applied to it
    which were never intended by the original author. I include in that
    category certain software that I've written myself, and for which I no
    longer have the ability to contact all contributors and obtain approval
    for a release under a different license.

    Of course, in a court of law, it's the words of the license that matter;
    but in the real world, given the absence of case law regarding the GPL,
    the FSF is quite a powerful force in scaring people out of using
    software that they might otherwise use.

    As you can tell, I'm more than a little bitter about this whole thing.

    --
    www.designacourse.com
    The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

    Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    MindIQ Corporation
    Chris Smith, Jan 12, 2005
    #13
  14. Peter

    Guest

    John C. Bollinger wrote:
    > Peter wrote:
    >
    > > If your program contain gnu code, it has to be gnu too. So if your
    > > later version(commerical license) contain any code from previous
    > > verion(gnu license), it has to be gnu too, right?

    >
    > It depends what you mean by "contains". If you have taken source

    code
    > from a program licensed to you under the GPL and incorporated it into


    > your program, and you distribute the program then you must _either_
    > license your program under the GPL _or_ obtain a new license to the
    > borrowed code that permits you to include it in your product without
    > GPLing the product. Such an alternative license may cost money where


    > the GPL-licensed software might not have.
    >
    > Your program, on the other hand, can dynamically link to GPL'ed
    > libraries without being GPL 'ed itself. You can even distribute the
    > libraries with the program, so long as you license the libraries

    under
    > the GPL.
    >
    > There are fine points, caveats, the LGPL, and other considerations,

    but
    > those are some of the main points. If you want to be as certain as
    > possible of being legal then you should consult an attorney.
    >
    > > Deploy you program both under gnu and commerical is possible? even
    > > can, it has to open source too, but you can charge it for money.

    >
    > Yes, it is possible, and it is done. Typically the commercial

    license
    > entitles licensees to support and/or other services that are not
    > provided (free) to those licensing the software under the GPL.
    >
    >
    > John Bollinger
    >


    Yes, If your source code contain gnu code, it has to be gnu too. but
    link to a gnu library is ok.
    JFreeReport is dploy under LGPL license, so if your software use it,
    you still can deploy it under commerical license. But JFreeReport
    contain some GNU modules, so how can it be LGPL?
    thanks
    from Peter ()
    , Jan 13, 2005
    #14
  15. Peter

    Peter Guest

    "Ray Ingles" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <KDJEd.5145$>, Mark Murphy wrote:
    > > Peter wrote:
    > >> If your program contain gnu code, it has to be gnu too.

    > >
    > > This is FUD, often published by MS.

    >
    > Well, no. If you take some GNU code and use it in your program, then
    > the entire program becomes covered by the GPL. You can do whatever you
    > want on your own box, but if you distribute the program you have to do
    > it on the GPL's terms. That's what allows you to copy the code in the
    > first place. (You can't just take copyrighted code and do whatever you
    > want with it, no matter whose code it is.)
    >
    > However, there are ways around this. If you just link to the code in
    > a shared library, you're safe. See the GPL FAQ for details.
    >
    > > If this was true then no SW running on Linux could be under a commercial
    > > license. Look around there are a number of applications that are.

    >
    > No, code running *on* Linux doesn't have to 'contain' GPL'd code.
    > *That's* the FUD spread by MS. It's *copying* GPL code that puts a
    > program under the GPL, not simply being near it or working with it.
    >
    > > So if your
    > >> later version(commerical license) contain any code from previous
    > >> verion(gnu license), it has to be gnu too, right?

    >
    > No. You hold the copyright to code you created. You are free to
    > release it under whatever license you want. If you remove or replace
    > the GPL code, you can release your code under whatever licence you
    > want.
    >
    > Some programmers release code under both the GPL and BSD licenses.
    > As the authors, that's their right. You choose which restrictions to
    > abide by. Others offer both a GPL version and a commercial version
    > (Bitkeeper and Sendmail come to mind).
    >
    > --
    > Sincerely,
    >
    > Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
    >
    > "You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day,
    > no matter how rich you are." - Colonel Adolphus Busch


    Yes, you are right, changing a license from GNU to commerical, you have to
    remove all the GNU code first.
    Peter, Jan 13, 2005
    #15
  16. Peter

    Nigel Wade Guest

    John C. Bollinger wrote:

    > Nigel Wade wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> This is what the FAQ says:
    >>
    >> "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean

    that
    >> any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
    >>
    >> Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library."

    >
    > That is FSF's position, but I find it extraordinary. IANAL, but I
    > observe this from paragraph 0 of the terms and conditions of the GPL
    > version 2: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
    > are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." (That is,
    > copying, distributing, or modifying the GPLed program or library.) In
    > particular, the GPL explicitly does not address executing programs to
    > which it applies. The GPL is based on copyright, so I think arguments
    > which do not center on program source or object code (the entities that
    > are actually copied, modified, and or distributed) are tenuous at best.
    >


    Yes, but the issue is not how *you* (the developer) uses the GLP'd library.
    The issue is under what licence you distribute your application which uses
    the GPL'd library. The FSF position is quite clear on this, if you link to
    a GPL'd library then you must distribute the application under the GPL.

    As with all license agreements, they are what the licensee would *like* to
    be the legal situation, not what is actually legal. The only way to
    determine the actual legality is to put a case before a judge. Even
    consulting an attourney won't necessarily get you the right answer, but at
    least it might give you legal/financial redress if they give you the wrong
    advice.

    --
    Nigel Wade, System Administrator, Space Plasma Physics Group,
    University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK
    E-mail :
    Phone : +44 (0)116 2523548, Fax : +44 (0)116 2523555
    Nigel Wade, Jan 13, 2005
    #16
  17. Nigel Wade wrote:

    > Yes, but the issue is not how *you* (the developer) uses the GLP'd library.
    > The issue is under what licence you distribute your application which uses
    > the GPL'd library. The FSF position is quite clear on this, if you link to
    > a GPL'd library then you must distribute the application under the GPL.


    Yes, the FSF's position is clear, but it is not law. As I observed, it
    is not the only reasonable interpretation of GPL terms, and in my own
    opinion it is less reasonable than the alternative. But my opinion
    doesn't matter unless I'm the licensor.

    As Chris Smith pointed out, the FSF does exert considerable extralegal
    influence in this area, but that notwithstanding, legally they are in
    the same boat with all other "free" software producers and consumers.

    > As with all license agreements, they are what the licensee would *like* to
    > be the legal situation, not what is actually legal. The only way to
    > determine the actual legality is to put a case before a judge. Even
    > consulting an attourney won't necessarily get you the right answer, but at
    > least it might give you legal/financial redress if they give you the wrong
    > advice.


    Clearly we agree about that.


    John Bollinger
    John C. Bollinger, Jan 13, 2005
    #17
  18. Peter

    Chris Smith Guest

    Francis Litterio <> wrote:
    > But to execute a GPL'ed binary, it must be copied (page by page) from
    > persistent storage to RAM (and then again from RAM into the cache and
    > into the CPU). Granted, the copy is made _by_ your computer, but it is
    > the result of a command given directly or indirectly by you.


    So the end-user is restricted by the GPL? That doesn't really work.
    The GPL covers the distribution of copies of a work. IANAL, but making
    a temporary copy of a work, for temporary use, that is subsequently
    discarded, does not fall askew of copyright law even if you posess no
    license whatsoever. Or do you mean that the developer is liable for the
    copying actions of the end-user?

    Now here's the whole storyt. The reason that there is ambiguity about
    the GPL applying to programs that link to a GPLed library is this. The
    linking process has historically involved the compiler making use of
    some information from the library. In C, certain declarations of data
    structures, functions, constants, etc. are even textually included into
    the program via the preprocessor #include directive. Linkers also make
    use of information from the binary form of the library when building the
    executable.

    In Java, this phenomenon is less obvious. The Java compiler does
    include the values of compile-time constants in other classes, however,
    when compiling against them. It also still makes use of certain
    information in the library code to determine the meaning of application
    code; for example, it data will be converted from an int to a double
    automatically if a method is declared with a double parameter.

    Interestingly, in Java, it's quite possible to work around that problem
    by using (or building) a generic interface to a piece of functionality,
    and then plugging in an implementation at runtime. However, because
    people have gotten used to the idea that the GPL means what certain
    influential people (particularly Richard Stallman) would like it to
    mean, we end up with weird situations like MySQL, where the MySQL AB
    informed me once that if I distribute an application that gets its JDBC
    driver from a config file, and some customer of mine uses it with MySQL,
    then they feel that they could sue me over the issue. They appear to be
    (1) making the same mistake that Francis made above, confusing
    distribution with use; and (2) assuming that the GPL applies, even when
    none of their code has made its way into my source or object code. How
    could I violate their license agreement when I don't even have a copy of
    any of their code on any of the machines I use for development?

    --
    www.designacourse.com
    The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

    Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    MindIQ Corporation
    Chris Smith, Jan 13, 2005
    #18
    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. Peter

    1 day gnu, whole life gnu?

    Peter, Jan 10, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    325
    John C. Bollinger
    Jan 10, 2005
  2. Markus Elfring
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    358
    Markus Elfring
    Feb 23, 2005
  3. \A_Michigan_User\
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    871
    \A_Michigan_User\
    Aug 21, 2006
  4. Andy
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    682
  5. dd
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    145
    Tim Streater
    Jun 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page