Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > license question?

Reply
Thread Tools

license question?

 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
HI
I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is(
GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.

Am i correct?

thanks for your help
from Peter ((E-Mail Removed))
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Stefan Schulz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
On 13 Oct 2004 02:43:37 -0700, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> HI
> I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
> As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is(
> GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
> commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.
>
> Am i correct?


Partially.

You can include a LGPL library in your commercial prduct, and still
distribute
it closed-source, as long as you keep the library itself open. You can not
include any full GPL product in an application that is not itself full GPL
--

Whom the gods wish to destroy they first call promising.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
xarax
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
"Stefan Schulz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newspsfsyz4b3q1fd9p@localhost...
> On 13 Oct 2004 02:43:37 -0700, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > HI
> > I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
> > As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is(
> > GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
> > commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.
> >
> > Am i correct?

>
> Partially.
>
> You can include a LGPL library in your commercial prduct, and still
> distribute
> it closed-source, as long as you keep the library itself open. You can not
> include any full GPL product in an application that is not itself full GPL


But be VERY CERTAIN that your usage of the LGPL library
is only via dynamic calls. Static linking will contaminate
your product and make it also LGPL.

GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.

I would suggest looking at other license models that
are less socialistic in nature.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Joachim Bowman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
Hi,

["Followup-To:" to comp.lang.java.programmer]
* Peter [13 Oct 2004 02:43:37 -0700]:
> I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
> As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is( GNU
> GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
> commerical product.


Yes

> And i am free to distribute it and modify it.


Yes, as long as you follow the licencse conditions of the included
software.

As soon as you distributed your product you must obay the licence terms
of the GNU GPL. If you distribute your product you must distribute it
under the terms of the GNU GPL.

J
 
Reply With Quote
 
Morten Alver
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
> GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
> to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.


Ah, so if I release a library under the LGPL, I am actually trying to
convert your work (and everybody else's) into public domain? That's
flamebait for two reasons.

First, (L)GPL != public domain. This you are obviously aware of.

Second, YOU choose whether and how to use the library. If you don't read
the license before using the library, that's your problem (though the
LGPL is a bit obscure, I'll grant you that).



--
Morten
 
Reply With Quote
 
Todd Knarr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
In comp.os.linux.misc <(E-Mail Removed) > Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I have read GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license.
> As my understanding, i can including those softwares which is(
> GNU GPL , Common public licence and gnu lesser license) into my
> commerical product. And i am free to distribute it and modify it.


As long as you follow the license for the code you didn't develop
yourself. In general, the GPL/LGPL conditions are:

1. If all you're doing is including unmodified GPL/LGPL'd programs on
the same media and using them in scripts or by executing them
independently (eg. do a popen( "gpld-command") and read and parse it's
output) then all you need to do is provide either the source to those
programs or pointers to the standard sites the source can be downloaded
from. Your program itself can be licensed under any terms.
1a. If you modify those programs, you need to make the modified
source code available either completely or as a patch to the
unmodified source.
2. If you dynamically link to an LGPL'd library, you need to provide
the source code for it or pointers to the standard sites someone can
download the source from. Your program itself can be licensed under
any terms.
2a. If you modify the code of the library in any way, you must make
the modified source code available either completely or as a patch
to the unmodified source code.
3. If you statically link to an LGPL'd library (ie. physically incorporate
it's object code into your program's executable) or link in any way
to a GPL'd library, the result is according to the LGPL/GPL a
derivative work under copyright law. Since the original authors have
only licensed you to distribute their code in this way as part of a
product licensed under the LGPL/GPL, you must either comply with
that license and LGPL/GPL your program or be in violation of their
copyright.
4. If you actually physically copy LGPL/GPL'd source code into your
program's source code, it's the same as if you'd written a book
by copying wholesale a part of another book. Your work is a
derivative work, and you must either comply with the license terms
of the code you included and LGPL/GPL your work or cease using the
LGPL/GPL'd code.

IANAL, you'll want to pay a real attorney to evaluate it, but take note
that quite a few companies (Linksys being a recent example) have looked
at this after GPL'd code has been found in their products and not a one
of them has felt they have enough of a leg to stand on to argue in court
that they shouldn't be required to comply with the GPL.

--
All I want out of the Universe is 10 minutes with the source code and
a quick recompile.
-- unknown
 
Reply With Quote
 
Harold Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
In <cH9bd.3037$(E-Mail Removed) t>, xarax:

> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441


[Snip...]

> GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
> to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.


Hi Flatfish. Wassamatta: 'lil ol Tux gonna take over Unca Bill's world?

<PLONK>

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
 
Reply With Quote
 
xarax
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004

"Morten Alver" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ckjatr$s38$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
> > to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.

^^^^^^^^^^^

>
> Ah, so if I release a library under the LGPL, I am actually trying to
> convert your work (and everybody else's) into public domain? That's
> flamebait for two reasons.


That may not be your intent, but it is the intent of [L]GPL.

> First, (L)GPL != public domain. This you are obviously aware of.


> Second, YOU choose whether and how to use the library. If you don't read
> the license before using the library, that's your problem (though the
> LGPL is a bit obscure, I'll grant you that).


If you choose wrong, then your work, that you never
intended to give away to the public, is given away
to the public.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Stefan Schulz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:45:15 GMT, xarax <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Ah, so if I release a library under the LGPL, I am actually trying to
>> convert your work (and everybody else's) into public domain? That's
>> flamebait for two reasons.

>
> That may not be your intent, but it is the intent of [L]GPL.
>
>> First, (L)GPL != public domain. This you are obviously aware of.


[...]

> If you choose wrong, then your work, that you never
> intended to give away to the public, is given away
> to the public.


Please, do not feed the trolls.

--

Whom the gods wish to destroy they first call promising.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Oscar kind
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
xarax <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> GNU licenses (all variants) are extremely viral; attempting
> to convert your hard work into effectively public domain.


This is completely false:
1. The (L)GPL is not viral; it simply disallows using someones hard work
for profit. It doesn't _fource_ you to do anything. Unlike for example
software patents, that influence you without your knowledge, effort,
etc.

2. The (L)GPL is just as far removed from public domain as a closed-source
licence. If what you say is true, you could just take (L)GPL'ed code
and use it in a closed-source product. You can't, because the (L)GPL
uses copyright law to defeat it.


--
Oscar Kind http://home.hccnet.nl/okind/
Software Developer for contact information, see website

PGP Key fingerprint: 91F3 6C72 F465 5E98 C246 61D9 2C32 8E24 097B B4E2
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Request for a downgrade from x64 OEM license to 32-bit OEM license =?Utf-8?B?SmVyZW15IFdvbmcg6buD5rOT6YeP?= Windows 64bit 58 09-22-2005 11:33 PM
What license to choose for Python programs? (PSF License vs. GPL/LGPL) Volker Grabsch Python 2 07-25-2005 12:06 PM
Wireless MP3 license problems =?Utf-8?B?V2lyZWxlc3MgV2Vhcnk=?= Wireless Networking 1 09-28-2004 11:50 PM
Pix 501 VPN License Issue - Not freeing License Jens Haase Cisco 1 01-29-2004 08:29 PM
Re: CrystalReports runtime (at client's place) license issue JohnFol ASP .Net 0 08-06-2003 01:01 PM



Advertisments