Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 54429
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2018/01/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
1/20    

2012/7/2-8/19 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:54429 Activity:nil
7/2     If I download a software that has GNU GPL and create a search
        engine on top of it and the search engine profits (and I don't
        release the source code nor do I modify or redistribute it), is
        that an acceptable use of GNU GPL?
        \_ Yes.  Even the AGPL allows this if you don't modify the program.
           \_ What if I'm a search engine that uses something that uses
              GNU GPL and I modify it for the company's infrastructure
              like Borg or GFE or BigTable but never release it to the
              world, is that acceptable use?
              \_ Yes.  http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
Cache (8192 bytes)
gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic -> www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq
Why does the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the FSF? If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this, too? Why does the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the FSF? If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this, too? If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially? Since distribution and making available to the public are forms of propagation that are also conveying in GPLv3, what are some examples of propagation that do not constitute conveying? Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free? I want to distribute binaries, but distributing complete source is inconvenient. Is it ok if I give users the diffs from the "standard" version along with the binaries? Can I release a program with a license which says that you can distribute modified versions of it under the GPL but you can't distribute the original itself under the GPL? I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet? Does a distributor violate the GPL if they require me to "represent and warrant" that I am located in the US, or that I intend to distribute the software in compliance with relevant export control laws? The beginning of GPLv3 section 6 says that I can convey a covered work in object code form "under the terms of sections 4 and 5" provided I also meet the conditions of section 6 What does that mean? Over the years we've contributed code to projects under "GPL version 2 or any later version", and the project itself has been distributed under the same terms. If a user decides to take the project's code (incorporating my contributions) under GPLv3, does that mean I've automatically granted GPLv3's explicit patent license to that user? Am I complying with GPLv3 if I offer binaries on an FTP server and sources by way of a link to a source code repository in a version control system, like CVS or Subversion? Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free? If I distribute a proprietary program that links against an LGPLv3-covered library that I've modified, what is the "contributor version" for purposes of determining the scope of the explicit patent license grant I'm making--is it just the library, or is it the whole combination? You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program? I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this by putting a "wrapper" module, under a GPL-compatible lax permissive license (such as the X11 license) in between the GPL-covered part and the proprietary part? I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ runtime library permitted under the GPL? I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions would have to obtain those libraries separately. If license for a module Q has a requirement that's incompatible with the GPL, but the requirement applies only when Q is distributed by itself, not when Q is included in a larger program, does that make the license GPL-compatible? In an object-oriented language such as Java, if I use a class that is GPL'ed without modifying, and subclass it, in what way does the GPL affect the larger program? I have written an application that links with many different components, that have different licenses. I am very confused as to what licensing requirements are placed on my program. I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet? If someone installs GPLed software on a laptop, and then lends that laptop to a friend without providing source code for the software, have they violated the GPL? Suppose that two companies try to circumvent the requirement to provide Installation Information by having one company release signed software, and the other release a User Product that only runs signed software from the first company. The most widespread such license is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short. This can be further shortened to "GPL", when it is understood that the GNU GPL is the one intended. Making the program a GNU software package means explicitly contributing to the GNU Project. This happens when the program's developers and the GNU Project agree to do it. Otherwise, the program's maintainer may be the copyright holder, or else could tell you how to contact the copyright holder, so report it to the maintainer. Why does the GPL permit users to publish their modified versions? It is absolutely essential to permit users who wish to help each other to share their bug fixes and improvements with other users. Some have proposed alternatives to the GPL that require modified versions to go through the original author. As long as the original author keeps up with the need for maintenance, this may work well in practice, but if the author stops (more or less) to do something else or does not attend to all the users' needs, this scheme falls down. Aside from the practical problems, this scheme does not allow users to help each other. Sometimes control over modified versions is proposed as a means of preventing confusion between various versions made by users. In our experience, this confusion is not a major problem. Many versions of Emacs have been made outside the GNU Project, but users can tell them apart. The GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her name on it, to distinguish it from other versions and to protect the reputations of other maintainers. Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; Can I have a GPL-covered program and an unrelated non-free program on the same computer? The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses. What does "written offer valid for any third party" mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what? If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer. The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you. GPLv2 says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed ... "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to...