Thanks Matt, I think i will release it GPL3, i wont bundle it with anything , just the code i develop. Am i allowed to offer services for it, ie i can charge a client to install it, set it up, design a theme?
Thanks Glenn On Feb 12, 7:22 pm, Matthew Woodward <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Go-Systems <[email protected]> wrote: > > Im developing an intranet appliance for recruitment companies using > > Ubuntu, MySQL, OpenBD. I would like to know if im allowed to bundle > > them together in a prebuilt Virtualbox image, so my clients can just > > start the virtualbox on a server of theres. > > Ultimately it depends on the license you're planning to apply to your CFML > applications. There are multiple layers here so we'll have to walk through > each one to get some discussion going. > > Here's the licenses that apply to the software you'd be distributing: > * Ubuntu: GPL and others > * MySQL :GPL > * Java: GPL > * Tomcat (I'm assuming you're using Tomcat?): Apache > * OpenBD: GPL with classpath exception (essentially) > * Apache web server: Apache > * Your application code: ??? > > As far as OpenBD and your CFML app is concerned you're absolutely allowed to > distribute things:http://openbluedragon.org/zerocost.cfm > > Ubuntu itself is GPL (along with other licenses specific to the applications > that are bundled with Ubuntu). I'm not a lawyer but strictly speaking in > terms of the GPL if you bundle an application with software that is GPL, > then the GPL would apply to the software being released as well since GPL is > a copyleft license. That being said, Ubuntu is distributed with all sorts of > applications that are not all GPL, so my guess is either Ubuntu has an > exception clause in their license (and there's layers to Ubuntu as well, > starting with the kernel and moving up from there), or the subtleties of the > GPL don't prohibit this. > > As just one example, Ubuntu ships with the Apache web server, and Apache is > released (not surprisingly) under the Apache license, so obviously that's > allowed. The other interesting thing that I've never quite gotten to the > bottom of is it depends in which direction you look at things. The Apache > license is more permissive in terms of what you can and can't do with the > software, and it's also not reciprocal like the GPL is, so looking at the > Ubuntu/Apache bundle from the direction of Apache, this is no problem. And > since this happens all the time in the wild I assume this is the right way > in which to view things. > > Or a much simpler example--there's tons of VM, AMI, etc. images available > running a LAMP stack, which would be a mix of GPL, Apache, and PHP license > (yes, PHP has their own license) so again, I'm assuming this is all above > board or the respective parties would have been screaming about it long ago. > > That's the long answer. The short answer is based on how I understand all of > this working, as well as what goes on in the wild, I don't believe there is > anything prohibiting you from distributing an Ubuntu VM that has MySQL, > Java, Apache, Tomcat, OpenBD, and your CFML app. > > > What license am i allowed > > to offer it in. I dont want to allow people to repackage it as offer > > it for sale, without my consent. > > Were you planning on offering your application under an open source license > or a commercial one? > > I'd have to ponder this a bit but off the top of my head I do not know of an > open source license that would prevent people from re-selling the app as is. > The GPL for example, which is the most widely used free software license, > does not prohibit resale of GPL-licensed applications. See the first four > questions here:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney > > And the explanation of the GPL as it relates to selling > here:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html > > If people made modifications to your application and distribute it, if you > release your application under the GPL they would be required to release > their changes under the GPL as well. > > Remember that the GPL is the most widely used free software license by far > (accounts for nearly 70% of all open source applications), so even though > the GPL doesn't prevent someone from taking your app and reselling it, this > rarely happens in the wild. In fact, one of the main reasons the GPL is so > widely used is because it offers the original author of the code the best > protection against people doing things like taking the code, making changes > to it, not making those changes available as open source, and even offering > the code (modified or otherwise) as part of an application that is closed > source. All this *would* be permissible under the Apache and BSD-style > licenses. > > And remember also that copyright comes into play. Copyright is a completely > different beast than the software license so I won't even delve into that > unless we have to. ;-) Peter Farrell has looked into copyright a lot for the > Mach-II project so maybe he can chime in and say a word or three about how > that would come into play. > > What I don't know is if you choose to use an open source license for your > application, if you're even allowed to prohibit reselling the entire package > given the licenses involved with the software with which you're bundling > things. My gut tells me you're not, meaning you couldn't say "my app is GPL > but you can't resell it" since at that point it's not GPL anymore (i.e. > you're removing one of the rights granted by the GPL). > > Another option of course is to have everything *but* your application code > on the VM, and then make your application a WAR that people just drop into > the environment after the fact. Since you wouldn't be bundling then you > could apply any license you want to your application. > > If you want to release your application code itself under a commercial > license then you can write the license however you want, but at least based > on my understanding of the GPL and taking all this in total, I'm not sure > that would be allowed strictly speaking, though there's good info in the > first two questions > here:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem > > As you can tell by reading that there is a TON of gray in all of this and > blurring of lines between all the various components that make up a piece of > software. I think the key here is "communicate at arms length" because > another key tenet of the GPL is the notion of a "derivative work" which is > what the link above is getting at. > > Phew. Lots of info I know but I wanted to walk through that verbally to > illustrate all the issues. > > Bottom line is this: I don't think there's anything preventing you from > doing what you want. The only real question is the license under which you > choose to release your application code. > > If you use the GPL for your application, there's nothing stopping someone > from reselling it as is. If they modify the code and distribute it, however, > they would be obligated under the GPL to make their changes available under > the GPL. > > If you use the Apache license for your application, people can pretty much > do whatever they want with your code, including modifying it and not making > their modifications available, or even bundling the code with a > closed-source application. > > If you use a proprietary license you can pretty much apply whatever > restrictions you want, and based on the "arm's length" explanation on the > FSF site concerning how a proprietary license interacts with the GPL, I > think you'd be OK here. > > Key clause is this: > "However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software > alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure > that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they > are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single > program." > > So the question for a lawyer would be if your application code running on > the rest of this stack "make[s] them effectively a single program." To me it > doesn't since the rest of the stack certainly exists and can run > independently of your application, and you can run other CFML applications > on this stack. > > Honestly you would probably be wise to ask a lawyer about all of this, or > the Free Software Foundation does have a license compliance "hotline" email > address so if you're considering using the GPL, or want to ask about how a > proprietary license applied to your application would interact with all of > this, you could check with them:http://www.fsf.org/licensing > > <http://www.fsf.org/licensing>Sorry for being such a windbag but there's a > lot to consider here. :-) I'll be curious to see if others have better > insight on all of this. > -- > Matthew Woodward > [email protected]http://blog.mattwoodward.com > identi.ca / Twitter: @mpwoodward > > Please do not send me proprietary file formats such as Word, PowerPoint, > etc. as attachments.http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- tag/function ref: http://www.openbluedragon.org/manual/ mailing list - http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en Get to Texas in Feb for OpenCFSummit http://www.opencfsummit.org/
