4 ms·

I am not expert, but GPL v3 terms means that I can't use it in commercial product if I do not attach all my source code? Am I right?

codexon 14y ago
yes that is correct
- its_so_on 14y ago
  Don't forget that web services are a great way around the gpl. Just slap a subscription fee on there and don't distribute the server-side code and you can do whatever you want with it and/or charge whatever you want for it without being in violation or giving a competitor a chance to copy you. worked for Google. gpl client-side code of course you cannot protect in this way (except your trademarks).
  - stanleydrew 14y ago
    But this is JavaScript to be run on top of WebRTC, which is a client-side API. So won't your code by definition be client-side if you use this?
    - zachrose 14y ago
      But then again isn't all client-side JavaScript open source?
      - stephenson 14y ago
        No, you can see the source, but thats not the same as "open source".
        nkassis 14y ago
        this is an important distinction. Everything on the web is copyrighted and you can't just go and grab images/html/css/javascript without permission from the copyright holder. And view source isn't going to show you much when looking at sites like Gmail where the code is generated by a compiler that makes it as obtuse and unreadable as machinely possible.
        rmc 14y ago
        Exactly. Think of it like a book. You can see the source code of a book (i.e. the individual letters), but you cannot copy it (without permission)
      - prodigal_erik 14y ago
        GPL requires that users have access to the preferred form for modifying the work. If you're using coffeescript or a state machine graph or whatever, the generated javascript is more like object code than maintainable source.
  - rauar 14y ago
    GPLv3 (the license used here) applies for web services as well AFAIK and imposes the same requirements for distribution.
    - adestefan 14y ago
      There was a draft of GPLv3 that included such a clause. This was dropped with the development of Affero GPL license. The final version of GPLv3 dropped all language regarding web services. If you want to use a GPL-like license for a web application, then the AGPL is the license to use.
      - rauar 14y ago
        Interesting. I was not aware that this was contained in the draft and then removed. Tnx for clarification.
rmc 14y ago
Any open source software (gpl3, gpl2, bsd licence, mit licence etc etc) cannot be distributed in a commercial or noncommercial manner without also providing the source code. (there are some other requirements aswell as this, notably with GPL that your software must be GPL licensed aswell.). There is nothing special in any open source/free software licence about commercial vs noncommercial use. All OS/FS treat commercial and noncommercial the same. As for requiring source code distribution, the GPL 3 is essentially the same as the GPL2 (which is ~20 years old), you have to do it under gpl2 and you have to do it under gpl3.
- carterschonwald 14y ago
  False. The whole point of the bsd license is that you are not required to make source available, but that if you do that you need to preserve the bsd notices about the copyright of the orIginal code. I'm over simplifying slightly but gpl is the one with the mandatory code resharing. MIT and bsd do not have that
- JulianK 14y ago
  The MIT and BSD licenses do allow distribution inside of commercial software without providing source code. The only real restrictions are that the MIT license requires you to include their copyright notice somewhere and the BSD license is similar. I believe the ZLIB license also permits commercial distribution. Off the top of my head it's only the GPL licenses that require source distribution no matter what.
- emddudley 14y ago
  What? No. You can distribute binaries you compiled from open source code that is licensed under the MIT or BSD licenses, in both commercial and noncommercial contexts. Read the license text, they only require you to include the license with your distribution. Not the source code or any of your modifications.
- rmc 14y ago
  I might be a bit wrong here, esp. with BSD. :P Mea cupla. I know that BSD, unlike GPL, does not require that derived code be BSD licenced. And when I was talking about "source code" I was thinking of the original code (not the derived work), but I was wrong about BSD not requiring that you provide the source. Many big users of BSD code (e.g. Apple) provide the BSD source code they use, so I thought it was required. However, for GPL, "commerical" vs. "noncommercial" is irrelevant.
neurotech1 14y ago
The code should be made available. It doesn't actually have to be distributed with or "attached to" the product. The option to post the download link elsewhere or available on CD for media cost only.
zobzu 14y ago
What amuses me is that most of the replies are "How to bypass the GPL so I won't have to give away the source" Then we have threads against the GPL in other posts and how BSD is great because its more free and that has nothing to do with "being able to keep the modified source". Well if the author decided to make it GPL one should respect the choice of the author, on top of not being unethical capitalists.

codexon 14y ago

yes that is correct

its_so_on 14y ago
Don't forget that web services are a great way around the gpl. Just slap a subscription fee on there and don't distribute the server-side code and you can do whatever you want with it and/or charge whatever you want for it without being in violation or giving a competitor a chance to copy you. worked for Google. gpl client-side code of course you cannot protect in this way (except your trademarks).
- stanleydrew 14y ago
  But this is JavaScript to be run on top of WebRTC, which is a client-side API. So won't your code by definition be client-side if you use this?
  - zachrose 14y ago
    But then again isn't all client-side JavaScript open source?
    - stephenson 14y ago
      No, you can see the source, but thats not the same as "open source".
      - nkassis 14y ago
        this is an important distinction. Everything on the web is copyrighted and you can't just go and grab images/html/css/javascript without permission from the copyright holder. And view source isn't going to show you much when looking at sites like Gmail where the code is generated by a compiler that makes it as obtuse and unreadable as machinely possible.
      - rmc 14y ago
        Exactly. Think of it like a book. You can see the source code of a book (i.e. the individual letters), but you cannot copy it (without permission)
    - prodigal_erik 14y ago
      GPL requires that users have access to the preferred form for modifying the work. If you're using coffeescript or a state machine graph or whatever, the generated javascript is more like object code than maintainable source.
- rauar 14y ago
  GPLv3 (the license used here) applies for web services as well AFAIK and imposes the same requirements for distribution.
  - adestefan 14y ago
    There was a draft of GPLv3 that included such a clause. This was dropped with the development of Affero GPL license. The final version of GPLv3 dropped all language regarding web services. If you want to use a GPL-like license for a web application, then the AGPL is the license to use.
    - rauar 14y ago
      Interesting. I was not aware that this was contained in the draft and then removed. Tnx for clarification.

rmc 14y ago

Any open source software (gpl3, gpl2, bsd licence, mit licence etc etc) cannot be distributed in a commercial or noncommercial manner without also providing the source code. (there are some other requirements aswell as this, notably with GPL that your software must be GPL licensed aswell.). There is nothing special in any open source/free software licence about commercial vs noncommercial use. All OS/FS treat commercial and noncommercial the same. As for requiring source code distribution, the GPL 3 is essentially the same as the GPL2 (which is ~20 years old), you have to do it under gpl2 and you have to do it under gpl3.

carterschonwald 14y ago
False. The whole point of the bsd license is that you are not required to make source available, but that if you do that you need to preserve the bsd notices about the copyright of the orIginal code. I'm over simplifying slightly but gpl is the one with the mandatory code resharing. MIT and bsd do not have that
JulianK 14y ago
The MIT and BSD licenses do allow distribution inside of commercial software without providing source code. The only real restrictions are that the MIT license requires you to include their copyright notice somewhere and the BSD license is similar. I believe the ZLIB license also permits commercial distribution. Off the top of my head it's only the GPL licenses that require source distribution no matter what.
emddudley 14y ago
What? No. You can distribute binaries you compiled from open source code that is licensed under the MIT or BSD licenses, in both commercial and noncommercial contexts. Read the license text, they only require you to include the license with your distribution. Not the source code or any of your modifications.
rmc 14y ago
I might be a bit wrong here, esp. with BSD. :P Mea cupla. I know that BSD, unlike GPL, does not require that derived code be BSD licenced. And when I was talking about "source code" I was thinking of the original code (not the derived work), but I was wrong about BSD not requiring that you provide the source. Many big users of BSD code (e.g. Apple) provide the BSD source code they use, so I thought it was required. However, for GPL, "commerical" vs. "noncommercial" is irrelevant.

neurotech1 14y ago

The code should be made available. It doesn't actually have to be distributed with or "attached to" the product. The option to post the download link elsewhere or available on CD for media cost only.

zobzu 14y ago

What amuses me is that most of the replies are "How to bypass the GPL so I won't have to give away the source" Then we have threads against the GPL in other posts and how BSD is great because its more free and that has nothing to do with "being able to keep the modified source". Well if the author decided to make it GPL one should respect the choice of the author, on top of not being unethical capitalists.