Re: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:45:55 +0100
> From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction

> There are two distinct licenses promoted by the FSF.  They are the GNU
> GPL (General Public License) and the GNU LGPL (Library General Public
> License).
> 
> As you suggest the LGPL is usuable.

I'm suggesting both are usable for commercial code development, just don't
put GPL'ed source code in your source code. There is NO limitation of the
GPL or the LGPL that prevents a commercial product from making calls into
the GPL'ed library.

The problem with your interpretation is that in a sense you want your cake and
eat it too. In short you want to be able to use somebody elses code in your
product without their having a say in how their code is used or receiving a
cut of the profits. The GPL/LGPL is specificaly designed to prevent this.

If you use their code (not the binaries, though you will be required to
provide source to those binaries if you distribute it with your product
though this won't include the binaries to your commercial product) then
you must release your code - an extension of derivation.

If you desire to produce commercial secure-source code compatible with a GPL 
license then simply don't ship *any* GPL with your product and use no GPL
source or LGPL'ed library in source form in that product.

The point to the L/GPL is not to prevent commercial code development but
rather to prevent somebody from taking a library some programmer written and
released for non-commercial (a distinction not permited under public domain)
use while retaining control over that source so that if somebody, like
yourself, bops along and decides they can make a million with it the
original programmer gets a cut or you loose your million.

How does the original programmer get a cut? Simple, the commercial entity
contacts the programmer and licenses a non-GPL'ed version of the library.

Bottem line, don't steal other peoples code to make money without paying
them for their effort. It's that simple.


    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, Sep 28, 1998 at 07:09:51PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
| 
| The problem with your interpretation is that in a sense you want your cake and
| eat it too. In short you want to be able to use somebody elses code in your
| product without their having a say in how their code is used or receiving a
| cut of the profits. The GPL/LGPL is specificaly designed to prevent this.


	I'll suggest that in a security context, having ones cake and
eating it too may not be such a bad thing.  If I can develop a
commercial product with crypto code thats been made available to the
community, then there is a lower chance the code will contain bogosity 
in its security critical functions.

	The GPL (not the LGPL) specifically prevents this with the
best of intentions.

Adam

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume