On 18/06/15 13:27, Riccardo Ciullo wrote:
I am writing to you because I have a doubt regarding GNU/MIT terms of use, which I hope you can clarify: what happens if someone creates a _new system_ by using a _combination_ of (more than one) existing softwares covered by the GNU/MIT public license (or other free software licenses)? Will he be able to i) _commercialize _ this new
Suggesting that open source and commercializable are mutually exclusive won't get you much sympathy on this list. That's even true for strong copyleft.
Even Microsoft have open source software in their products: a recent version of IE has BSD, JPEG, ISC, and Apache licensed material in it, and Windows Server 2003 also had MIT licensed material. I imagine that the core of Windows still has, but I couldn't find the third party credits document for a later version.
RedHat has built a large business on top of what is almost entirely open source and for which they provide all the source code.
Google and the mobile phone companies have made a lot out similar set of components, together with open source Java from Google itself; it's called Android.
Tivo and other set top box manufacturers have maybe half the code as open source (again Linux so again the same sort of mix) and they have to release the modified source code for those parts.
system/product, characterized by a totally new application if compared with the used source codes (covered by the relevant open license), without facing any infringement of the license? and ii) will he be able to prohibit no-authorized parties to copy it, use it, sell it, etc in the market?
Again, you won't get a lot of sympathy here, but MIT licensed material fully supports that, as the only obligations are to acknowledge the original copyright owner, not to take their name in vain, and not to hold them responsible.
GPL is more complex. Generally if the GPL code is sufficiently at arms length from the proprietary code that glues it together, or forms another part of the application, the proprietary code remains the exclusive copyright of its owners. The GPLed code and modified versions of it are covered by the GPL and you must provide the source code of those parts, and cannot restrict the use of that source code.
The authors of the GPL generally take the position that if the code is statically or dynamically linked, or any part is physically included in the input to a compiler, it is covered by the GPL and if the relationship is like that of shelling out to a Unix shell command, or via a network connection or file, it probably isn't. However, if you have any uncertainty about the meaning of GPL, you should employ a qualified lawyer to analyze whether your intended use is compatible.
The people who use MIT and BSD licences want maximum exploitation of their original code. The GPL people also want to prevent proprietary forks of their code.
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
