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
participants (2)
-
Adam Shostack
-
Jim Choate