[AuckLUG] GPL 3 - The Real Deal

[Nevyn]

On 6/1/07, Martin Bähr <mbaehr at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:16:50PM +1200, Ravi Chemudugunta wrote:
> > agree; but surely - there must be a distinction about which parts your
> make
> > available; if I used any gpl code ... any modifications I make to
> library
> > xyz would ofcourse be made openly available; but what is the point here
> > about making business logic open source ... it has no merit to the
> library
> > in question or add anything to it.
>
> the point is that the library enhances YOUR application, and therefore
> your application must play by the rules.
>
> > how closed is the source; only changes and editions to library xyz
> > need to be open? the whole thing (your application)? ... what if you
> > had to embed passwords in your code...would you have to make that open
> > as well?
>
> if i need thr passwords to be able to use the application by itself,
> then yes. (see the tivo problem)
> if the application can run without passwords or with different
> passwords, then they are data and not part of the application code.
>
> > I think gpl makes an allowance to this...you can use gpl in a closed
> source
> > project if you make changes to the open source library open;
>
> no it does not.
> you are mixing this up with the LGPL (lesser GPL) which is a related,
> but different license.
>
> > its abusive to
> > GPL to say , its gpl and its not ... depending on if you pay us money...
>
> how is that?
> if you own the copyright then you can put your code under any license
> you like. and if you like to put your code under a non-gpl license in
> return for a pile of money, then nobody can stop you.
>
> otoh. if you are trying to do that to MY code, then you'd be abusing
> it, and i would have to stop you. however, i won't (and can't) stop you
> if you only charge money, but do not change the license.
>
> greetings, martin.
>

The charging money bit depends on what you're charging money for. For the
source - no. For the distribution of the source (I.e. on disk or via the
internet you may charge). People like MySQL, Redhat and Novell are charging
more for customer support more than anything else.

The business model is quite simple. Here's a product and it does x, y and z.
You like it but are a tad worried about support? Pay us, we'll support it
for you and Bob's your mother's brother. If you don't need the support,
that's cool too. Chances are you'll add value to the application one way or
another whether it be feed back, different uses or simply a different
perspective.