Smith, Jeffery S \(Scott\)
Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:24:10 -0700
> -----Original Message----- > From: Justin Funke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:35 PM > Subject: RE: [e-smith-devinfo] e-smith.com (was Re: [e-smith-devinfo] > SME Server V5 with ServiceLink announced) > - Now back to this blade thing. Please excuse my lack of > understanding on > the details of GPL I've never had to read this deep into it before. This might be a good place to start: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GNUGPL First, I am not a lawyer. Second, as I understand it there is nothing to prevent making money from GPL software. You may impose a media charge, charge for warranty coverage, or charge subscription fees for updates, etc. Third, you are not required to deliver source code with the program, nor to make source code publically available as for example via anonymous ftp. You must make source code available for three years TO THOSE TO WHOM YOU DISTRIBUTE IT, but you may also recover the actual costs of duplication and delivery for supplying the source. There seems to be some debate as to what this means. Either it means that if I distribute the software, then I must make code available to ANYONE who asks for it. Or it means that if I give you the software, and you give it to Joe, that YOU are responsible for providing source code to Joe (if he requests it) but I am only liable to provide source to you and not to Joe. Fourth, you must make derivatives of GPL work available under the terms of the GPL. So, for instance, if you create a new ipchains that is based largely on the existing ipchains and/or cannot be reasonably argued to be a new or separate work, then your derivative must be made available under the GPL. However, if you create an ipchains-manager, perhaps a GUI manager for ipchains that only manages the configuration files used by ipchains, then that work would not be subject to the GPL. Even though ipchains-manager might not be "usable" without ipchains in that it would do no good, it is fundamentally a separate product. There is a gray area between these two scenarios, but in most cases the distinction seems to be clear. In the case of SME5, if the blade technology was developed as a new product, then even though it may work in conjuction with GPLed software or use GPLed software as tools/modules or might require the use of GPLed software to be effective, it is likely to be a separate product and therefore not subject to the GPL. In other words, it can be owned, licensed, and protected as commercial software. One the other hand, it is unlikely that the core SME5 product could ever be anything but GPL. Mitel nor anyone else is going to take the components that make up the "Linux server" bits and "own" them. Mitel (or anyone for that matter) could, however, rewrite VME5 as commercial software (provided, for non-Mitel efforts, that the rewrite was done using clean-room techniques.) Judging from another project I was involved in, and what I'm about to describe actually happened and was challenged and allowed to stand, the original copyright holders of GPLed software can fork a new codebase from their GPL codebase and release it as commercial software. The GPL codebase must continue to exist and can be worked with as with any GPL software, but the commercial codebase does not have to be GPL. The caveat, of course, is that that the codebases remain separate, and of course the commercial codebase cannot use code from the GPL version any differently than it would from any other codebase. As I recall, the typical approach in these cases is that the original copyright holders cease to be involved in the GPL codebase in order to protect their commercial interests. Also, it is difficult to do this unless the copyright for virtually all of the code that makes up the GPL product is held by a single entity. The more copyright holders there are to the components of a GPL product, the less feasible it is for that product to be forked commercially. (Basically, any bits where the copyright is not held by the entity doing the commercial fork, must be recreated in a legal fashion.) Anyway, that's what I know of the GPL. I consider it very unlikely that Mitel will attempt to fork a commercial version of the base product. Many hurdles to overcome. Very likely, though, that ServiceLink and various blades will be commercially licensed. Again, I am not a lawyer. The above is just what I've gleaned from several years of bumping heads with GPL (and other "open source") projects. Scott -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org