GNU licencing

[GomiGirl]

Can anybody explain to me in words that I would understand about the use
of software under a GNU licence?

Never looked at open source stuff as we have always licenced from publishers etc. But there is a certain "widget" that we want to use but I have no idea if I can use it in my commerical app.

[omae mona]

I haven't read the license in years. But if I recall, some of the key points include:

• You have to make the source code of the GPL code available somehow. (you can charge reasonable costs to cover media/shipping if you want to provide it on CD-ROM, for example)
• If you modify the GPL code, you definitely need to make the source code of your modifications available too.
• I think there is also a requirement that you state your software includes GPL code (but I'm not sure).

The 2nd requirement causes some people to complain the GNU Public License is "viral" since it forces you to open-source your software too. That's not really true. If you use the GPL'ed code in certain authorized ways inside your own software, that's not considered modification of the software, so you don't have to release any of your own source code.

[GomiGirl]

We don't want to create any open soucre but we want to use it in a commercial application but want to make sure we are not violating any copyrights.

We are adding it to proprietary software as a "nice feature to have" rather than to code it ourselves as we can't be arsed reinventing a wheel that is already out there. I can send you an email to give you more details if you are so inclined.

[alicia454]

We don't want to create any open source but we want to use it in a commercial application but want to make sure we are not violating any copyrights.
We are adding it to proprietary software as a "nice feature to have" rather than to code it ourselves as we can't be arsed reinventing a wheel that is already out there. I can send you an email to give you more details if you are so inclined.

If your software is completely closed source (ie. all your own), then why not just use a run-of-the-mill commercial software licence, with often has the following structure:

• Copyright 200X-2009 COMPANY, All rights reserved.
• terms of use
• lack of liability (COMPANY is not responsible for damages cause by)
• retention of ownership for modified/derived works

If your software contains some third-party source, such as an opensource library with a GPL licence, then you need to follow the terms of use for that software. In the case of open-source libraries (such as libc) many of them use LGPL or BSD licences which allow you freely link against them in closed source applications with private/custom licences.

If you have other third open-source software with GPL or other more restrictive licences, you can sometimes get around it, by placing it into a binary container, like an application wrapper or dynamic runtime (shared) library which works with the rest of your software, and then you only open source that container.

For my own personal applications, some of which I have opensourced, I used a variation of the BSD licence, similar to the licence for Apache or Mozilla, since it is less restrictive then the GPL for commercial uses.

If at all possible, avoid any and all GPL version 3 software! Run away screaming in the opposite direction. Not even Linux itself supports GPL v3, due to its extreme anti-patent and anti-commercialization measures. Most open source developers use GPL v2 and do not want the horrible v3.

PM me if you have any specify question regarding specifics of your software.

[American Oyaji]

Hey GG,
Ditto what Alicia said about GPL v2/v3.

I'd avoid the GPL if possible altogether.

[Samurai_Jerk]

[FG Lurker]

I'd avoid the GPL if possible altogether.

There's nothing wrong with using GPL software. I'd encourage it rather than avoid it and I think one result of the current economic mess will be more companies changing parts of their infrastructure to free software.

Mixing GPL code with non-GPL code in a single application is a big no-no though. If you include any GPL code in an application then you must release the application under the GPL.

There are many free software licenses though, often with fewer (or even no) restrictions on how the code can be used.

[GomiGirl]

Thanks to everybody for their comments

It is a GNU lesser general public licence version 3

It says that combined works are permissable but damn it is a hard doc to read, much less understand.

It seems that another developer is using the same bit we want to use in their app - combined with their stuff, wrapped it all up and put it on the appstore for sale.

But given what everybody says, it seems that this is a no-no.

We normally just commercially licence the regular way.

[alicia454]

Thanks to everybody for their comments

It is a GNU lesser general public licence version 3

It says that combined works are permissable but damn it is a hard doc to read, much less understand.

It seems that another developer is using the same bit we want to use in their app - combined with their stuff, wrapped it all up and put it on the appstore for sale.

But given what everybody says, it seems that this is a no-no.

We normally just commercially licence the regular way.

You might be better off looking for an earlier version that might be under the GPL v2, since v3 is relativity new. The GPL v2 is much more permissive for proprietary works.

When you mentioned that your application was for the App Store, did you mean the Apple App Store?

If your application uses an Apple's MacOSX "*.app" bundle, then you might be able to put it within a binary file container as I described about, inside the app bundle, and only the source for that container needs to be provided.

[omae mona]

It is a GNU lesser general public licence version 3

That changes everything! The implications of the LGPL are very different than the regular GPL for what you're trying to do. The main difference is to make it easier for you to incorporate the LGPL-licensed libraries into your own code. Of course please read the fine print, but my understanding is this: if you don't actually modify the source code and run the LGPL software as-is, and you link dynamically to its libraries, then you are safe and don't need to open-source any of your own software.