On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 06:43:58PM +0800, Migs Paraz wrote: > LGPL is basically GPL'd code that does not 'infect' proprietary code linked > against it. >
Boss, that's not quite accurate. The LGPL is one of the least clear licenses the FSF has ever come up with, so much so that IBM's legal counsel which includes many experts on intellectual property law, tread warily around it. Basically the intent of the LGPL is to allow the user of a program that uses a library under the lesser GPL to upgrade the library to a newer version seamlessly to correct a bug or whatnot in the library that may affect the program's operation. That means that the user should have a way of relinking the program with the library if she wishes. In practice, if the software developer wants to distribute the package in closed-source form, either 1. they link dynamically with the LGPL library, or 2. they link statically, but provide a linker and all the object files that need to be linked together with the LGPL library. > > I also think that if you work on the project as an "internal" project you > > can use all the GPL stuff you want and still not GPL (but also not > > release) your program. I don't know if this is legally permissible if you Your program is still technically under the GPL then, but the GPL does not affect actions that not involve distribution or modification of the program. So if you never release your program to the public, it is unimportant whether it is GPLed or not. > > work as a consultant but effectively leave your program with your customer > > (ie: don't sell the same thing to other people). I dunno ... I'm not a > > lawyer. > You can sell the same thing to other people even so, provided that by distributing the GPLed package you provide your other clients with the source, and you do not enter into some other agreement that will prevent these same clients from performing redistribution. In practice however, this is probably totally unnecessary, for if clients feel that they gain an advantage from using your software, why would they give it away so other competing businesses can get the advantages of your effort and work for free? Better for them to come to you and pay your consultancy fees first before they get it! :) They probably don't understand the software as well as you do, which is why they hired a consultant like you to do that service for them, so providing the source is probably of very low risk. They do not have the motivation to study the software either, otherwise they would have done the job of writing the software themselves. You can enter some kind of service agreement with them that does not actually prevent them from making modifications, but voids their service contract and forces them to pay you more money if they want you to fix things for them. Not prevented by the GPL. > If the software is proprietary to the client then it can indeed be under > any license you want. The same is true if you use the proprietary software > to implement a network-based service. > > What the GPL forbids is selling a binary/compiled package as 'shrink wrapped' > software without revealing the source. > > Note that the GPL 'infects' other code if and only if GPL sources are used > as part of the executable, whether in source or in object form (say a GPL'd > library.) Using GPL'd tools like the Linux environment or gcc does not > 'infect' your product. > > > > my next question is, if i provide my clint with GPL'd software, can i > > > charge them *if* i provide 'warranty" and 'technical support' for the > > > software? > > What you're selling to them then, is NOT the software, but your warranty and technical support service. It's the crux of many free software-based business models. Red Hat does this, as well as all other Linux distro makers. > > The GPL actually allows that it be sold. Except that when you sell it, > > it's GPL'd, and that means if your customer sells it to other people, even > > if it were your program, you can't demand royalties. > > Did the original poster mean "GPL'd software he wrote" or "public GPL > software?" > > > > my last question would be, does anybody know a way of making real ca$h > > > from linux? all the stuff i seem to find on the net is almost always > > > theoretical - does anybody have experience in making money through open > > > source / free software i can relate to? > > Network-based services (e.g. web-based), consulting, and anything else you > can think of EXCEPT selling binaries. > Right. To add to that, warranty guarantees, technical support, handholding, and so on and so forth. http://www.opensource.org/ has many suggestions. Red Hat seems to be a profitable--albeit marginally so--business, even in spite of the tech recession. -- Rafael R. Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +63(2) 8177746 ext. 8311 Programmer, Inter.Net Philippines +63(917) 4458925 http://dido.ph.inter.net/ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x5CDA17D8 Heute die Welt und Morgen das Sonnensystem! _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
