Clearing up the License Confusion

[atwong]

People,

 

All your questions have already been asked at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html, the people who made GPL.

 

Basically, if you use GPL code, attach anything to it, it is also GPL. Not only that, me, you, or anyone else can request the source code and binaries. End of story. See here. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#W...ittenOfferValid and http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#T...odifiedVersions

 

So say for instance... you built a snazzy addon to osCommerce like AI that will recommend you a product. Guess what, I can request the source code and binaries from you. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#G...rcePostedPublic and http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#T...PLModuleLicense

 

And then I can actually resell it or redistrabute it. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#T...AllowRequireFee and http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#T...sTheGPLAllowNDA

 

What if I hired a consultant and he built addon. I pay him for it. Shouldn't I own it (whole/just my changes)? Nope.... doesn't matter. You might have paid for him time, but the OS GPL Community now owns that code (if it's publicially assessable). Guess what, if I see it, and I know it's GPL, I can ask for it, source and binaries.

 

GPL was made so that no one can claim ownership of the code. From the first alpha form to all it's mutations and children (very, very few exceptions. You have a slightly better chance getting a date with Julia Roberts).

 

Now i'm going to go to all the "featured" sites and see what cool functions I can cherry pick. *** Note: It's code that I can cherry pick. GPL doesn't mean I can grab their site. I can grab all the code but they wouldn't have to give me the images, and the database data and structure.

 

In the end, if you run a business. I'd be very worried to build features on top of GPL that give you a stragetic advantage in the marketplace since your competitors can ask for your code. Rather, I would like to see you contribute directly to the OS GPL development community since they'll own it anyhow. If that doesn't float your boat, you can just use the software, run your business and enjoy. Just don't do anything more than what the GPL software provides.

 

Last two cents, personally, I would much rather has seen this software using Apache Software License or LGPL. More freedom to assert my changes are mine and I can do almost anything I want with it.

[burt]

Remember also, that when you request the code, the developer can charge you.

 

Open Source does *not* mean free of charge.

[Paul_C]

Not only that, me, you, or anyone else can request the source code and binaries. End of story. See here. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#W...ittenOfferValid and http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#T...odifiedVersions

 

So say for instance... you built a snazzy addon to osCommerce like AI that will recommend you a product. Guess what, I can request the source code and binaries from you. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#G...rcePostedPublic and http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#T...PLModuleLicense

 

You can request all you want (until it becomes harassment), but the GNU GPL does not require someone to distribute their code or binaries. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#G...rcePostedPublic

 

What if I hired a consultant and he built addon. I pay him for it. Shouldn't I own it (whole/just my changes)? Nope.... doesn't matter. You might have paid for him time, but the OS GPL Community now owns that code (if it's publicially assessable).

 

The GNU GPL doesn't give ownership to anyone. It's a license between a copyright holder and another party. Without the copyright holder there is no license. In most countries the author automatically holds copyright, but laws vary on the work-for-hire situation. In any case, the "OS GPL Community" does not own the code. (There isn't even a legal entity called "the OS GPL Community" that you could give ownership to if you wanted to.)

 

Guess what, if I see it, and I know it's GPL, I can ask for it, source and binaries.

 

See first reply.

 

GPL was made so that no one can claim ownership of the code.

 

No it wasn't. It was made to ensure that source code was freely modifiable and distributable. You're thinking of public domain. (Which, however, doesn't necessarily apply to derivative works.)

 

Now i'm going to go to all the "featured" sites and see what cool functions I can cherry pick. *** Note: It's code that I can cherry pick. GPL doesn't mean I can grab their site. I can grab all the code but they wouldn't have to give me the images, and the database data and structure.

 

Again, noone has to give you anything they don't want to.

 

Last two cents, personally, I would much rather has seen this software using Apache Software License or LGPL. More freedom to assert my changes are mine and I can do almost anything I want with it.

 

Agreed, though I'm a bigger fan of the BSD license.

 

Really though, if you intend to "clear up the license confusion" you need to know what the hell you're talking about. (Sorry to bite, but there's already way too much misinformation out there on this topic.)

[Harald Ponce de Leon]

Basically, if you use GPL code, attach anything to it, it is also GPL.

 

Yes, this is the viral effect of the GPL license. That is why all contributions are under the GPL license, and why all work discussed in the forums are to be released under the GPL license.

 

Not only that, me, you, or anyone else can request the source code and binaries.  End of story.

 

Not quite.

 

The GPL license mainly discusses binary related issues - meaning, if you receive a binary file you can also get the source code for it.

 

Just because a solution is under the GPL license does not mean you have the right to the work involved. By that I mean, you have no right asking all live shops, for example, for their source code.

 

So say for instance... you built a snazzy addon to osCommerce like AI that will recommend you a product.  Guess what, I can request the source code and binaries from you.

 

No, I don't have to give you anything if I was the author. See above.

 

And then I can actually resell it or redistrabute it.

 

Yes, though only under the GPL license.

 

What if I hired a consultant and he built addon.  I pay him for it.  Shouldn't I own it (whole/just my changes)?  Nope.... doesn't matter. You might have paid for him time, but the OS GPL Community now owns that code (if it's publicially assessable).   Guess what, if I see it, and I know it's GPL, I can ask for it, source and binaries.

 

The copyright is actually attached to the author that made the work.

 

And yes, you could probably ask for the work but it's another thing altogether if the authors decides to give it to you or not.

 

GPL was made so that no one can claim ownership of the code.  From the first alpha form to all it's mutations and children (very, very few exceptions. You have a slightly better chance getting a date with Julia Roberts).

 

Wrong. The author decides exactly how their own work can be distributed.

 

If osCommerce was 100% written by myself, I could decide to release it under another license, or together with the GPL license (called dual licensing).

 

Now i'm going to go to all the "featured" sites and see what cool functions I can cherry pick.  *** Note: It's code that I can cherry pick.  GPL doesn't mean I can grab their site.  I can grab all the code but they wouldn't have to give me the images, and the database data and structure.

 

That's also wrong.

 

Last two cents, personally, I would much rather has seen this software using Apache Software License or LGPL. More freedom to assert my changes are mine and I can do almost anything I want with it.

 

What makes you so sure of that, seeing as the points you raised with the GPL license are wrong? Maybe your thoughts on the Apache/LGPL licenses are also wrong?

[atwong]

Remember also, that when you request the code, the developer can charge you.

 

Open Source does *not* mean free of charge.

 

Yes. I agree.. they can charge me for a distrabution fee that will come with the source and binaries. Free as freedom to do what i want and not "free" as in free beer.

[atwong]

Not only that, me, you, or anyone else can request the source code and binaries.  End of story.  See here. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#W...ittenOfferValid and http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#T...odifiedVersions

 

So say for instance... you built a snazzy addon to osCommerce like AI that will recommend you a product.  Guess what, I can request the source code and binaries from you. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#G...rcePostedPublic and http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#T...PLModuleLicense

 

You can request all you want (until it becomes harassment), but the GNU GPL does not require someone to distribute their code or binaries. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#G...rcePostedPublic

 

You're right.. i was wrong about the "have to" part.

 

 

What if I hired a consultant and he built addon.  I pay him for it.  Shouldn't I own it (whole/just my changes)?  Nope.... doesn't matter. You might have paid for him time, but the OS GPL Community now owns that code (if it's publicially assessable).

 

The GNU GPL doesn't give ownership to anyone. It's a license between a copyright holder and another party. Without the copyright holder there is no license. In most countries the author automatically holds copyright, but laws vary on the work-for-hire situation. In any case, the "OS GPL Community" does not own the code. (There isn't even a legal entity called "the OS GPL Community" that you could give ownership to if you wanted to.)

 

Ahh... http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#T...odifiedVersions. I have a license from them to me. Still, like you said, they don't have to do anything for me.

 

GPL was made so that no one can claim ownership of the code.

 

No it wasn't. It was made to ensure that source code was freely modifiable and distributable. You're thinking of public domain. (Which, however, doesn't necessarily apply to derivative works.)

 

Your right... I meant that it was made so that people can share and that no one could bully the community.

 

Now i'm going to go to all the "featured" sites and see what cool functions I can cherry pick.  *** Note: It's code that I can cherry pick.  GPL doesn't mean I can grab their site.  I can grab all the code but they wouldn't have to give me the images, and the database data and structure.  

 

Again, noone has to give you anything they don't want to.

 

Sorry... bad metaphor, bad example.

 

Last two cents, personally, I would much rather has seen this software using Apache Software License or LGPL. More freedom to assert my changes are mine and I can do almost anything I want with it.

 

Agreed, though I'm a bigger fan of the BSD license.

 

Really though, if you intend to "clear up the license confusion" you need to know what the hell you're talking about. (Sorry to bite, but there's already way too much misinformation out there on this topic.)

 

That's okay for the bite... i should have watched out myself.