Terms of GPL licensed Library

halfpower · 10-28-2006, 07:26 AM

Say I write some little program. This program only compiles by using a C library that has a GPL license. When I publish my program, must I include my source code? Can I keep it closed source?

acid_kewpie · 10-28-2006, 07:32 AM

in my understanding you must release the source code to anyone who requests it. if you charge for your product then you are only obliged to provide source code to paying customers, but you must still do so if requested.

easuter · 10-28-2006, 08:17 AM

why would you want to keep it closed anyway?

halfpower · 10-28-2006, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by easuter

why would you want to keep it closed anyway?

It's less effort that way. An open source license can also conflict with other licenses that require a closed source.

acid_kewpie · 10-28-2006, 09:38 AM

less effort... ahh i see you have the highest standard motivating you!

yes there are plenty of incompatibilities within licenses for open and closed source products, but you only provide source for things using the open source software, not the other sub components. if that were the case then those products would already be obliged to be open source.

Matir · 10-28-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie

in my understanding you must release the source code to anyone who requests it. if you charge for your product then you are only obliged to provide source code to paying customers, but you must still do so if requested.

You have to provide source to anyone who asks, whether or not they bought the product. (Section 3.b of the GPL, I believe)

jlliagre · 10-28-2006, 10:37 AM

If the library you use is LGPL (not GPL), you can keep your code closed source, if you wish.

acid_kewpie · 10-28-2006, 01:02 PM

well 3b says that the distributed product must contain an offer to show the source code for free. so if someone does not have that distributed product, e.g. the box set or downloaded licensed software, then they have no offer with it either.

Matir · 10-28-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie

well 3b says that the distributed product must contain an offer to show the source code for free. so if someone does not have that distributed product, e.g. the box set or downloaded licensed software, then they have no offer with it either.

Well, under the GPL FAQ you would seem to be correct. Of course, if someone you sold a copy to redistributes it, you are still obligated to support those copies with source. So imagine one person buys a copy and posts it on some FTP/torrent/whatever site...

acid_kewpie · 10-29-2006, 03:17 AM

hmm, i'd doubt that really. This would really be what centos is all about, they bought the rhn subscription to get the rhel official updates and they rebuild them. you won't get the updates for rhel without the $$$ subscription at all. once centos rebuild them, they are no longer redhat's software.