selling gpl software?

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:13 PM, jeffry s <paragasu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> forgive me for my stupidness. i am quite confuse with law thing
> and gpl, gplv2 and gplv3 or gnu proven hard for me to understand.
> anyone can point me a comparison between all this?

GPL is the (GNU) General Public License.

GPLv2/GPLv3 are the second/third versions, containing
modifications, ratifications, and clarifications. There may be some
other ifications in there that I'm forgetting as well.

GNU is a recursive acronym (as PHP now is for PHP Hypertext
Preprocessor). It stands for GNU's Not Unix, and is an operating
system. It's often confused with the organization from which it
receives primary focus (and shares the founder: Richard Stallman),
known as the FSF - the Free Software Foundation.

> a simple explanation easy for baby to digest.. :)

Now go get burped and have Mommy change your diaper. ;-P

--
</Daniel P. Brown>
Forensic Services, Senior Unix Engineer
1+ (570-) 362-0283

richard...

sure it would!! you can easily have gpl software, and then apply additional
copyright/use terms. as long as your additional conditions don't obviate, or
change the gpl, then you're fine...

peace..

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Heyes [mailto:richardh@phpguru.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:42 AM
To: bruce
Cc: 'jeffry s'; 'PHP General list'
Subject: Re: [php] selling gpl software?


> if the author of the app has included terms saying that you can use the
app,
> provided that you keep the links/etc... then no, you can't violate the
> terms... however, in reality, of course people do it all the time...

Then it wouldn't be under the GPL. The GPL is itself a set of terms that
grant you permission to use and redistribute the software. If you add to
it, it stops being the GPL.

--
Richard Heyes
Employ me:
http://www.phpguru.org/cv

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Daniel Brown <parasane@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:13 PM, jeffry s <paragasu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > forgive me for my stupidness. i am quite confuse with law thing
> > and gpl, gplv2 and gplv3 or gnu proven hard for me to understand.
> > anyone can point me a comparison between all this?
>
> GPL is the (GNU) General Public License.
>
> GPLv2/GPLv3 are the second/third versions, containing
> modifications, ratifications, and clarifications. There may be some
> other ifications in there that I'm forgetting as well.
>
> GNU is a recursive acronym (as PHP now is for PHP Hypertext
> Preprocessor). It stands for GNU's Not Unix, and is an operating
> system. It's often confused with the organization from which it
> receives primary focus (and shares the founder: Richard Stallman),
> known as the FSF - the Free Software Foundation.
>
> > a simple explanation easy for baby to digest.. :)
>
> Now go get burped and have Mommy change your diaper. ;-P
>
> --
> </Daniel P. Brown>
> Forensic Services, Senior Unix Engineer
> 1+ (570-) 362-0283
>

what is the difference between gpl, gplv2 and gplv3 ?

actually.. baby is a name of a monkey. sure it doesnt need a diaper... :p

On Wednesday 19 March 2008, Colin Guthrie wrote:

> Also as it's GPL and as you are "supplying" the modifications you make
> to your client, you are obliged to release the changes you make to the
> community. If this was a 100% internal development (e.g. you are
> employed directly by your client, not as a contractor), then you are not
> obliged to release the changes.

Not true. If you take an open source project, modify it, and give a copy to
your client, you are under no obligation to give anyone else in the world a
copy of your modified code. What you ARE required to do is give that
modified to code to your client under the GPL so that he can, if he wants to,
share it with the world, and anyone he gives a copy to can also share it with
the world if they want to, etc.

Removing any user-facing references to the original project is completely
legal. Whether or not it is polite or acting with the "spirit" of the
community, etc. is a question of community ethics, not law, and something
you'll have to decide for yourself.

--
Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42
larry@garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea,
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas
Jefferson

On Wednesday 19 March 2008, jeffry s wrote:

> what is the difference between gpl, gplv2 and gplv3 ?

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/license...ide-gplv3.html

--
Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42
larry@garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea,
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas
Jefferson

Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2008, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>
>> Also as it's GPL and as you are "supplying" the modifications you make
>> to your client, you are obliged to release the changes you make to the
>> community. If this was a 100% internal development (e.g. you are
>> employed directly by your client, not as a contractor), then you are not
>> obliged to release the changes.
>
> Not true. If you take an open source project, modify it, and give a copy to
> your client, you are under no obligation to give anyone else in the world a
> copy of your modified code. What you ARE required to do is give that
> modified to code to your client under the GPL so that he can, if he wants to,
> share it with the world, and anyone he gives a copy to can also share it with
> the world if they want to, etc.

Is that true? I would have thought that by developing under contract and
then subsequently "supplying" your modifications to your client, this
constitutes "distribution" of the code. It is this "distribution" of the
code that I've always considered the trigger for "having" to share it
back to the community - e.g. if your changes are internal to your
company you don't need to share it. Earlier I wrote that whether he was
employed directly or as a contractor would have bearing and this
statement was based on the above understanding. Am I wrong?

Col

On Thursday 20 March 2008, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> Larry Garfield wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 March 2008, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> >> Also as it's GPL and as you are "supplying" the modifications you make
> >> to your client, you are obliged to release the changes you make to the
> >> community. If this was a 100% internal development (e.g. you are
> >> employed directly by your client, not as a contractor), then you are not
> >> obliged to release the changes.
> >
> > Not true. If you take an open source project, modify it, and give a copy
> > to your client, you are under no obligation to give anyone else in the
> > world a copy of your modified code. What you ARE required to do is give
> > that modified to code to your client under the GPL so that he can, if he
> > wants to, share it with the world, and anyone he gives a copy to can also
> > share it with the world if they want to, etc.
>
> Is that true? I would have thought that by developing under contract and
> then subsequently "supplying" your modifications to your client, this
> constitutes "distribution" of the code. It is this "distribution" of the
> code that I've always considered the trigger for "having" to share it
> back to the community - e.g. if your changes are internal to your
> company you don't need to share it. Earlier I wrote that whether he was
> employed directly or as a contractor would have bearing and this
> statement was based on the above understanding. Am I wrong?
>
> Col

If the code is "work for hire" and the initial ownership is with the
client/company, then there is no distribution and so you are not required to
do anything. That includes if you are a full time employee of the company.

If the code you write is owned by you and given to a client, that is
distribution. You can either give the client a copy of the source at the
same time, in which case you needn't share it with anyone else, or say "you
can get it from this FTP if you want", in which case anyone may access it
because when the client distributes the "runnable version" of the code to
someone else, they will also say "and you can get it from this FTP if you
want".

As PHP is its own source code, the latter is generally not an issue since the
source code is provided automatically.

So in the OP's case, if he takes an existing GPLed project, modifies it in
whatever way (including removing mention of the original project), and gives
a copy to his client, his only legal obligation is to provide the client with
the code under the GPL so that the client can, if he wants, pass the code on
to someone else under the GPL. "Someone else" could be a public FTP server
or not.

--
Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42
larry@garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea,
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas
Jefferson

Larry Garfield wrote:
> If the code is "work for hire" and the initial ownership is with the
> client/company, then there is no distribution and so you are not required to
> do anything. That includes if you are a full time employee of the company.

OK, that's more or less my understanding.

It is my understanding that, by default, contracting law states that any
work done under contract is your (the contractor's) copyright (e.g. on a
very loose contract that is the default case). Many employers of
contractors will typically change this default stance.

> So in the OP's case, if he takes an existing GPLed project, modifies it in
> whatever way (including removing mention of the original project), and gives
> a copy to his client, his only legal obligation is to provide the client with
> the code under the GPL so that the client can, if he wants, pass the code on
> to someone else under the GPL. "Someone else" could be a public FTP server
> or not.

I was half assuming the stance of the employer here was that he did not
want the changes shared.

So assuming this and the above note about contract law etc., then my
original statement is correct.

Whether these assumptions are correct in themselves (and this my whole
thread of assumption breaks down!), I'll leave for future research and
happily live in my bubble of ignorance ;)

Col

Colin Guthrie wrote:
> Larry Garfield wrote:
>> If the code is "work for hire" and the initial ownership is with the
>> client/company, then there is no distribution and so you are not required to
>> do anything. That includes if you are a full time employee of the company.
>
> OK, that's more or less my understanding.
>
> It is my understanding that, by default, contracting law states that any
> work done under contract is your (the contractor's) copyright (e.g. on a
> very loose contract that is the default case). Many employers of
> contractors will typically change this default stance.
>
>> So in the OP's case, if he takes an existing GPLed project, modifies it in
>> whatever way (including removing mention of the original project), and gives
>> a copy to his client, his only legal obligation is to provide the client with
>> the code under the GPL so that the client can, if he wants, pass the code on
>> to someone else under the GPL. "Someone else" could be a public FTP server
>> or not.
>
> I was half assuming the stance of the employer here was that he did not
> want the changes shared.
>
> So assuming this and the above note about contract law etc., then my
> original statement is correct.
>
> Whether these assumptions are correct in themselves (and this my whole
> thread of assumption breaks down!), I'll leave for future research and
> happily live in my bubble of ignorance ;)
>
> Col
>
>

Larry, read the GPL license. It has can be used, distributed, modified
under GPL only.

On Saturday 22 March 2008, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote:

> Larry, read the GPL license. It has can be used, distributed, modified
> under GPL only.

And where have I said otherwise?

--
Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42
larry@garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea,
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas
Jefferson