Page 1 of 1
question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:01 am
by Luke
I am writing a module for an application that is compiled and closed source. I'd like to include jQuery in this module as well as a certain jQuery plugin. jQuery is licensed as GPL, so in order for me to sell my module it must also be licensed as GPL (if I am not mistaken). The problem is that modules for this particular piece of software must be compiled. Would I need to make the source code openly available in order to sell this? How does this work?

Re: question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:23 am
by Kieran Huggins
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem wrote:However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.
So in the case of jQuery, you'd be selling the (proprietary) system you wrote, and including a copy of jQuery with it. You would be responsible for making the source of the GPL library (jQuery) available, which is a non-issue since it's script.
You would only have to GPL code that "incorporates" already GPL'd code into it. In this case, however, I would view the jQuery library as a separate system that you call "at arms length".
However, if you modify jQuery core in any way you will of course need to GPL the modified version.
On important issue seems to be disclosure: As long as you make it clear that your software is distributed
alongside a GPL'd library you should be free and clear.
So you're not "selling" jQuery, you're including it as a separate piece of software. You're selling an app that
interfaces with jQuery. Which is fine.
Anyone disagree?
Re: question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:30 am
by Luke
That makes sense to me. Thanks Kieran.

Re: question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:36 pm
by Chris Corbyn
To put in in straight forward terms most of the GPL variants say this:
"You can do what the hell you want with it, provided you always include the license with it".
I'll be going through some confusion with licensing myself shortly since I need to "sell" a non-free product under a license which forbids redistribution in its entirety, yet the code base will be roughly 50% LGPL code wirtten by myself, with the other 50% commercial written by myself. I'll probably be seeking advice nearer the time.
Re: question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:38 pm
by Luke
That actually leads me to another question. What is the difference between GPL and LGPL. To be completely honest, I've always gone with LGPL in my libraries because I saw that you used it in Swift and I don't know what the hell I'm doing

Re: question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:58 pm
by Chris Corbyn
Yep, effectively LGPL is for libraries rather than complete apps. GPL is for apps.
Re: question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:01 pm
by Luke
Alright... that's what I figured.

Re: question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:27 pm
by Christopher
I think you may need to be more careful than has been said here. The GPL cannot be mixed with other code easily, the LGPL is designed so that you can "link" LGPL and non-LGPL code and not have to redistribute your own code.
However, that all may be moot because jQuery is also licensed under the MIT license -- which may be a better choice for you.
Re: question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:33 pm
by Mordred
Also, it has to be said that there is absolutely no problem to sell GPL software, as long as you provide the source.
Re: question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:41 pm
by arjan.top
GPL can't be used in closed-source code, LGPL can be
Re: question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:30 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
Also, it has to be said that there is absolutely no problem to sell GPL software, as long as you provide the source.
Not entirely true - the GPL ensures the software you receive can be redistributed and modified freely. You can't per se sell GPL software since the buyer is then entirely free to redistribute it on the internet to anyone willing to download it

.
Correctly speaking you can sell something that's not free - i.e. costs of distribution, packaging or support services. If you intend selling the software itself, then an open source model is not the profitable path - use a commercial license.
GPL can't be used in closed-source code, LGPL can be
Again, not entirely true. The GPL can be distributed alongside closed source software assuming the two are not linked. This is impossible with compiled source code, but easy with interpreted code like PHP and Javascript. Just remember to include the license and make it obvious you are not selling the GPL'd code itself but only distributing it for use by your application (and not as a linked module!).
LGPL has fallen out of fashion because it's not as free as you think - that's why a lot of projects have turned to commercial friendly licenses such as MIT and New BSD since it has no limitation on linking/distribution/modification and so it's has no viral qualities to prevent software selling where the software includes such libraries.
In a dual-licensed project - please opt in for the license providing you the most freedom

. If you directly own and retain a 100% copyright to the code you are distributing please remember the License does not restrict the copyholder's rights! You can license any version of the code under any License you want so long as it does not constitute a retraction of a previous GPL/LGPL license on other users. So you can license v1.4 of a library twice - once with the LGPL for open source release, and separately under a commercial license for distribution as a sold proprietary product.
Being the Copyright holder affords you that right. Nobody else can do that which is why it's so rare since having 100% of the copyright entitlement is unlikely in a community project. That's the real kicker here - if someone has contributed to your LGPL project (generally projects assume that's anyone with commit rights and doesn't include obvious code snippets unaccompanied by a license/copyright) you may not have 100% entitlement. Thread carefully here...
Re: question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:00 am
by Mordred
Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:Also, it has to be said that there is absolutely no problem to sell GPL software, as long as you provide the source.
Not entirely true - the GPL ensures the software you receive can be redistributed and modified freely. You can't per se sell GPL software since the buyer is then entirely free to redistribute it on the internet to anyone willing to download it

.
Correctly speaking you can sell something that's not free - i.e. costs of distribution, packaging or support services. If you intend selling the software itself, then an open source model is not the profitable path - use a commercial license.
I think you're mixing the "free speech" and "free beer" meanings of the word "free" here. You
can exchange GPL software for money (and yes, people are able to download the source and compile it themselves with no monetary charge, but yes, you are allowed to charge as much as you want if you find someone willing to pay you money. It is often the case that the cost of a user or organization to learn to download and compile code will exceed the requested fee, so buying free software is economically plausible).
Re: question about GPL - selling GPL'd code
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:10 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
I pre-qualified already

: "Not entirely true" - meaning there is some truth in it but largely it's recommended to base your money making schemes on selling a product the buyer can distribute elsewhere freely.
Also why would other user's need to learn to compile the code if the compiled versions are distributed under the license from rapidshare?
