Arnold Krille wrote: > Hi, > > On Tuesday 04 August 2009 21:23:20 Sampo Savolainen wrote: > >> I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my >> proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A >> violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non >> GPL) software. >> Comments? >> > > As far as I know this is right. Because GPL is a license (thats what the L > stands for:), not an end-user agreement. All the GPL talks about is > (re-)publishing. So as long as you do not re-distribute your app (outside > your > home/business) no one knows and cares. > > And I always wonder how Trolltech would enforce people to not use the GPL- > version to start development and only buy a commercial license shortly before > publishing ones own app for money. They actually can't because the sources of > your app (should) not leave your home/business before that, so they wouldn't > know... > > Arnold
You can skip 1., 2.1 and 2.2 and directly read 3. ;). 1. If somebody has got a website made with Drupal (GPL) and he wants visitors of the side to install the proprietary flash player to use the web site, this won't be a problem. But will it be a violation, if somebody publishes a web site done with GPL software and proprietary software? Doing this isn't a distribution of the software. Doing this has nothing to do with with reprogramming the software, but even if somebody publishes a website done with reprogrammed GPL software, it's not publishing the reprogrammed software. GPL has nothing to do with just using software. 2.1 I download your GPL software and only change the copyright, I claim that I'm the original coder and in addition I add comments that you are liar, you have stolen my software. I copy this software with the faked copyright to 100 DVDs, but I keep this copies my own. This isn't a violation of the GPL. 2.2 I take those copies with me, while I'm using the short distance public transport and I forget them in a bus, without purpose, some people take a copy and install it to their desktop computers. This might be a violation, but the whole situation is grotesquely. 3. E.g. Cinelerra I guess this is software that links to Non-GPL software. "64 Studio cannot include it as part of the distribution because it has too many patent encumbered dependencies. But not to worry, if you install it yourself from other sources it is yours to use as you please! And this is that story..." (http://www.64studio.com/howto_cinelerra) From the file COPYING by "git clone git://git.cinelerra.org/j6t/cinelerra.git my_cinelerra": "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991" From the file LICENSE by "git clone git://git.cinelerra.org/j6t/cinelerra.git my_cinelerra": "In addition to the GPL's warranty stipulation, Cinelerra is distributed WITHOUT GUARANTEED SUPPORT; without even the guarantee of ADDITIONAL LABOR. Support that is not guaranteed includes technical support, compiler troubleshooting, debugging, version matching, updating, among other additional labor which may or may not be required to meet a user's requirements. GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
