Re: GPL: implications for FreeBSD-on-hardware for sale?
Paul A. Hoadley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Maybe some more specifics would be helpful. The application is a web application. It may or may not end up open source, but it will be for sale, and I don't want it to inherit a restrictive license. Even BSD licenses are restrictive, and even inheriting a GPL license is OK to almost everyone, as long as the license doesn't require using the GPL on the parts of the derivative that they own, which the GPL doesn't require for some kinds of derivatives. So I don't think my application is a derivative work of any of these. As you define application and derivative, maybe, but consider this: First, it could be said that your application (the thing you are distributing and licensing) is much more than just the code that you own. You're distributing a compilation which is covered by copyright law (like any other derivative?); you own copyrights in the compilation and in parts and others own copyrights in other parts. Second, those who might sue you (or their lawyers) and courts might have different definitions of the words. Third, the license might cause problems for you even if your application is not a derivative. (The GPL says the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program, possibly making a distinction between derivative and collective works, but covering both.) Fourth, copyright law uses the phrase compilations and derivative works, seeming to imply that they are different, but treating them the same, in the most important ways. BTW, USC 17 has some definitions, but they leave much for lawyers to argue about. But it looks to me like all collective works are compilations and all compilations are derivative works. I'm sure some (especially those who've only read the GPL) would disagree. But that's just my understanding of things; you'll have to rely on the opinions of yourself and your lawyers. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL: implications for FreeBSD-on-hardware for sale?
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 07:58:15AM -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: Paul A. Hoadley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Maybe some more specifics would be helpful. The application is a web application. It may or may not end up open source, but it will be for sale, and I don't want it to inherit a restrictive license. Even BSD licenses are restrictive, By restrictive, I mean a license that forces itself onto other code, whether by way of the other code being a derivative work, using the licensed code, or just sitting on the same distribution medium. The main issue here is simply that I don't _necessarily_ want to distribute source code to the application. (Of course, if the code remains largely PHP, I'll essentially be doing that anyway.) I don't want the decision to be pre-made just by interacting with other software. -- Paul. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
GPL: implications for FreeBSD-on-hardware for sale?
Hello, For a certain niche market, I am considering selling a software application by pre-installing it on a small machine running FreeBSD, and then selling the whole thing. Are there any implications arising from the GPL (or other more-restrictive-than-BSD licensed) code in the tree? Would it be arguable that I was, in fact, selling only the hardware and my own software application, and giving away the (GPL- and BSD-licensed) open source software for free? I presume that the GPL would require me to at least make the source code of the GPL-covered parts of FreeBSD available on request (Section 3(b)), given that I would not be including the FreeBSD source code (it simply wouldn't be required) in the installation. This bridge must have been crossed before. Does anyone have any experience here? -- Paul. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL: implications for FreeBSD-on-hardware for sale?
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 05:15:15PM +0930, Paul A. Hoadley wrote: For a certain niche market, I am considering selling a software application by pre-installing it on a small machine running FreeBSD, and then selling the whole thing. Are there any implications arising from the GPL (or other more-restrictive-than-BSD licensed) code in the tree? Would it be arguable that I was, in fact, selling only the hardware and my own software application, and giving away the (GPL- and BSD-licensed) open source software for free? I presume that the GPL would require me to at least make the source code of the GPL-covered parts of FreeBSD available on request (Section 3(b)), given that I would not be including the FreeBSD source code (it simply wouldn't be required) in the installation. This bridge must have been crossed before. Does anyone have any experience here? There's no problem with selling GPL'd programs for money. As the cant goes Free speech, not free beer. All you have to do to comply with the GPL is make available the sources to the software you're using to your customers, or let them know how they can retrieve them from a third party. In this case, probably just pointing them in the direction of the FreeBSD servers would be sufficient. If you're dead against redistributing GPL'd stuff, you'll find it difficult to produce a completely GPL-free setup: removing things like the C compiler and gdb and texinfo is easy enough, but such things as readline and the regex libraries are harder to deal with. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL: implications for FreeBSD-on-hardware for sale?
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 05:15:15PM +0930, Paul A. Hoadley wrote: Hello, For a certain niche market, I am considering selling a software application by pre-installing it on a small machine running FreeBSD, and then selling the whole thing. Are there any implications arising from the GPL (or other more-restrictive-than-BSD licensed) code in the tree? You are allowed to charge for GPL software. Look at redhat, suse, etc. What the GPL requires is that any GPL software you distribute, you must provide the source code and the same rights you have under the GPL (get source, modify, redistribute). Would it be arguable that I was, in fact, selling only the hardware and my own software application, and giving away the (GPL- and BSD-licensed) open source software for free? You don't need to argue. You can sell your own GPL software for $500, but you need to provide the GPLed source and the redistrib/modify rights. Your own proprietary binaries you can distribute along side the GPL and BSD code, provided you don't have GPL code within your programs. It can all be bundled together as long as you have licensing, copyrights and required source as part of the package (or possibly available, but not part of the package). Cory -- Cory Petkovsek Adapting Information Adaptable IT ConsultingTechnology to Your (858) 705-1655 Business [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.AdaptableIT.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL: implications for FreeBSD-on-hardware for sale?
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: There's no problem with selling GPL'd programs for money. As the cant goes Free speech, not free beer. I guess I'm interpreting Section 1 too restrictively then. I took You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy to be fairly limiting on the magnitude of this fee. I guess it's not then. All you have to do to comply with the GPL is make available the sources to the software you're using to your customers, or let them know how they can retrieve them from a third party. In this case, probably just pointing them in the direction of the FreeBSD servers would be sufficient. OK. If you're dead against redistributing GPL'd stuff, you'll find it difficult to produce a completely GPL-free setup: removing things like the C compiler and gdb and texinfo is easy enough, but such things as readline and the regex libraries are harder to deal with. I'm not against it. I just want to make sure I get the specifics of the license exactly right. :-) Thanks a lot for your input, Matthew. -- Paul. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL: implications for FreeBSD-on-hardware for sale?
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 01:55:23AM -0700, Cory Petkovsek wrote: Your own proprietary binaries you can distribute along side the GPL and BSD code, provided you don't have GPL code within your programs. It can all be bundled together as long as you have licensing, copyrights and required source as part of the package (or possibly available, but not part of the package). Thanks for that. Again, then, I think I was interpreting the text of the license too restrictively---obviously my own code does not become a derivative work just because it's sitting on the same disk. (Not sure why I thought it would.) Thanks for the input, Cory. -- Paul. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL: implications for FreeBSD-on-hardware for sale?
Paul A. Hoadley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: There's no problem with selling GPL'd programs for money. As the cant goes Free speech, not free beer. We all use loose language like that, but a software seller should keep in mind that usually he's really doing two things: publishing (or at least distributing) copies of the software and licensing use of the software. The GPL seems to permit charging anything for the publishing (but see clause 3b for an exception) while prohibiting any charge for the licensing (but see the clauses which require fees in the form of cross-licensing some derivative works). I have no idea how it's legally permissible to say that your one bundle price only applies to the publishing and not the licensing, but I've never heard that any publishers or licensors worry about it. Also remember that not only the chunks of software like readline carry licensed and sub-licensable copyrights, but that your arrangment of the chunks as the collection that you publish (your product) is copyrightable, and a careful buyer will want a license for that too, which must (per the GPL) be compatible with the GPL. (The GPL does, of course, allow distribution with closed-source software. I think the GPL's further restrictions clause should be a problem here, but I'm not aware that any GPL licensor has complained about any further restrictions in such kinds of GPL derivatives as your product will be.) Would it be arguable that I was, in fact, selling only the hardware and my own software application, and giving away the (GPL- and BSD-licensed) open source software for free? I'll have to refer you to a lawyer. Maybe it depends upon what the sales contract says. Maybe not. Or maybe if you have no right to sell licenses for a fee, then it's implied that you're not selling it. But it's easy to get too wrapped up in worrying about technicalities that most people seem happy to ignore. Good question; I've not seen this bundling issued discussed before. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL: implications for FreeBSD-on-hardware for sale?
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 11:04:46AM -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: We all use loose language like that, but a software seller should keep in mind that usually he's really doing two things: publishing (or at least distributing) copies of the software and licensing use of the software. The GPL seems to permit charging anything for the publishing (but see clause 3b for an exception) while prohibiting any charge for the licensing (but see the clauses which require fees in the form of cross-licensing some derivative works). I have no idea how it's legally permissible to say that your one bundle price only applies to the publishing and not the licensing, but I've never heard that any publishers or licensors worry about it. Now this is more like the kind of complexity I was expecting. :-) Also remember that not only the chunks of software like readline carry licensed and sub-licensable copyrights, but that your arrangment of the chunks as the collection that you publish (your product) is copyrightable, and a careful buyer will want a license for that too, which must (per the GPL) be compatible with the GPL. (The GPL does, of course, allow distribution with closed-source software. I think the GPL's further restrictions clause should be a problem here, but I'm not aware that any GPL licensor has complained about any further restrictions in such kinds of GPL derivatives as your product will be.) Maybe some more specifics would be helpful. The application is a web application. It may or may not end up open source, but it will be for sale, and I don't want it to inherit a restrictive license. It uses some PHP (Open Publication License), is served by Apache (Apache Software License), and is backed by PostgreSQL (BSD license). Currently I'm using a PHP template engine called Smarty (LGPL). Here, my application would be a 'work that uses the library'. So I don't think my application is a derivative work of any of these. Would it be arguable that I was, in fact, selling only the hardware and my own software application, and giving away the (GPL- and BSD-licensed) open source software for free? I'll have to refer you to a lawyer. Maybe it depends upon what the sales contract says. Maybe not. Or maybe if you have no right to sell licenses for a fee, then it's implied that you're not selling it. I'll have to look into it further. But it's easy to get too wrapped up in worrying about technicalities that most people seem happy to ignore. Excellent point. :-) (But, then, I don't want to be a test case either. :-) Good question; I've not seen this bundling issued discussed before. It must have arisen somewhere---people have done this before. I'll search harder... Thanks for the input, Gary. -- Paul. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
