[AuckLUG] GPL 3 - The Real Deal

[Michael J. Knox]

<stir>
There is always the BSD license.. 
</stir>


On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 03:28 +0200, Martin Bähr 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.