Yep you're absolutely allowed to charge for services and support. On Feb 12, 2011 12:36 PM, "Go-Systems" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/
-- 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/
