11/27 I want to distribute a .c file that I sell with my proprietary
product. The .c file is GPL'd. Do I have to distribute my
proprietary product for free, now?
\_ Ask a fucking lawyer.
\_ Yes. RMS wants it all. Stupid you for picking COMMIE GPL
tainted code.
\_ IF you include GPLed code in your program, your whole program
falls under the GPL. This is a deliberate "feature": that it is
viral in nature. The key difference between the GPL and LGPL
is that the LGPL, since inteded for libraries, is that only the
origional portion is under the LGPL, the rest of your program
is not. One of the initial bugs in Bison is that the output
was covered under the GPL and not the LGPL (a situation since
rectified).
\_ No. The GPL does not prevent you from selling your code. That
said, depending upon which version of the GPL the file is under
(there are several, check out http://gnu.org for details), others may
proprietary product. The .c file is GPL'd. This means I
must make available the entire source of my proprietary
product for free, to anyone that asks.
be able to freely give your code to others.
\_ The GPL doesn't affect one bit how much you charge for your product,
for free to anyone that asks, less medium copy costs.
it just gives your customers the right to give it away to anyone
they want at any price they want, including for charge or for free.
Sooner or later it will probably end up in the hands of someone
who will do it for free.
\_ Thanks. I read the http://gnu.org material. Amended:
I want to distribute a .c file that I sell with my
proprietary product. The .c file is GPL'd. My proprietary
product becomes GPL'd. All GPL'd software must be available
\_ Only if the .c file is part of your product. Look at
all the major Unix vendors - they include GPL'ed software
with their OS'es, but their OS'es aren't GPL'ed.
\_ I was talking with a friend about this and the
opinion was that if we distribute the GPL'd .c file
with the intention that the user can link it in
with our source, then it becomes iffy enough
that someone can sue us if we don't GPL the
entire proprietary product.
for free to anyone that asks, less medium copy costs. I can
still sell my proprietary product for however much I want,
but I have to give it away free to anyone that asks.
\_ No you don't - you have to include source or provide it
at a reasonable cost for media for anyone who has a
binary copy, but you don't have to give it away for free.
\_ "less medium copy costs"
\_ Okay, so I've done some research on the GNU GPL, and the basic
idea is that if you link GPL'd source with your product, then
your product becomes GPL'd, and anyone can take your product's
source and make an improved version of your product. In other
words the GNU GPL "encourages" free software, which leaves the main
revenue stream for GPL'd software to grants and support contracts,
and co.'s like Red Hat that would pay programmers to write GPL'd
software. Is that right?
\_ there's also the GNU Library license. take GNU libc. one can
link to it and still keep his or her code proprietary. -dpetrou
\_ Yes. This is correct. The GPL is an evil virus license.
\_ Well, free software isn't a bad thing. The GPL definition
and intent should just be more clear to the lay programmers.
\_ I'm not opposed to free. I'm opposed to virus licenses.
\_ BSD is a free license. GPL (and variations) are not.
\_ This is what happens when you get a kook like RMS trying
to write a legal document to do something that's
questionably legal in the first place. |
http://csua.com/feed/