LinuxQuestions.org
Go Job Hunting at the LQ Job Marketplace
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-14-2008, 07:00 PM   #1
kushalkoolwal
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Middle of nowhere
Distribution: Debian Squeeze
Posts: 1,249

Rep: Reputation: 48
GPL License - Source code for shell script?


Hi,

I had a question regarding legal aspect of GPL license. I tried skimming through the GPL guide but I am not sure if that answers my question and hence my question on this forum.

I am planning to write a bash shell script which does some functions (using various commands like copy, cd, dialog,etc) on my Debian etch system. Now under the GPL FAQ it says (as far as I understand) that I can sell this script commercially to other users but I am not sure if I need to distribute the source code also along with it?

Ideally, when I write this script, I would like to sell it (even if for a small amount) but at the same time I would like to protect my source code. How can I do this?

Thanks
 
Old 02-14-2008, 07:10 PM   #2
jailbait
Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Blue Ridge Mountain
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Debian Jessie
Posts: 7,590

Rep: Reputation: 187Reputation: 187
The script code that you distribute is both the source code and the executable.

---------------------
Steve Stites
 
Old 02-14-2008, 07:18 PM   #3
AceofSpades19
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Chilliwack,BC.Canada
Distribution: Slackware64 -current
Posts: 2,079

Rep: Reputation: 57
you need to provide access to the source code if its under the gpl
 
Old 02-14-2008, 07:25 PM   #4
kushalkoolwal
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Middle of nowhere
Distribution: Debian Squeeze
Posts: 1,249

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceofSpades19 View Post
you need to provide access to the source code if its under the gpl

Thank you guys for your reply. Is that true under LGPL also?

Can you share with the page where it says that I need to distribute the source code? I have been looking for it but didn't quite actually get it.

Also, are there any other type of FOSS license which will allow me to protect my source code and will still enable me to sell it?

Thank you once again.

Last edited by kushalkoolwal; 02-14-2008 at 07:27 PM.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 07:33 PM   #5
reddazz
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 73
Quote:
Also, are there any other type of FOSS license which will allow me to protect my source code and will still enable me to sell it?
If you are writing shell scripts, how do you intend to protect the source code? The script is the program, so when you sell that on to someone, they can easily see the source code. If its GPLed then they are allowed to redistribute it and even release the source code.

Some of your questions maybe answered by reading the GPL FAQ.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 07:35 PM   #6
AdaHacker
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Brockport, NY
Distribution: Kubuntu
Posts: 384

Rep: Reputation: 31
What do you mean by "protect" your source code? If you don't want other people to see it, or if you want to prevent them from modifying or redistributing it, then that, by definition, is not open-source.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 07:45 PM   #7
kushalkoolwal
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Middle of nowhere
Distribution: Debian Squeeze
Posts: 1,249

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdaHacker View Post
What do you mean by "protect" your source code? If you don't want other people to see it, or if you want to prevent them from modifying or redistributing it, then that, by definition, is not open-source.
I beg to differ but it is not the case that you are thinking. One can protect the source code and it can still be called open-source or free software.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 07:47 PM   #8
kushalkoolwal
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Middle of nowhere
Distribution: Debian Squeeze
Posts: 1,249

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddazz View Post
If you are writing shell scripts, how do you intend to protect the source code? The script is the program, so when you sell that on to someone, they can easily see the source code. If its GPLed then they are allowed to redistribute it and even release the source code.

Some of your questions maybe answered by reading the GPL FAQ.
Hi thanks for your reply. Actually there are programs like wzshSDK and shc which allows you to create a sort of stripped down binary of your source code. The resulting file is exactly like a binary.

In any case, let's suppose I write a C program and create a binary out of it. So my question is whether there is any FOSS license which allows me to sell those binary but at the same time also give me the right to distribute the source code or not.

Last edited by kushalkoolwal; 02-14-2008 at 07:55 PM.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 08:02 PM   #9
AdaHacker
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Brockport, NY
Distribution: Kubuntu
Posts: 384

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by kushalkoolwal View Post
I beg to differ but it is not the case that you are thinking. One can protect the source code and it can still be called open-source or free software.
In what way? If you're saying you want to give someone a binay but deny then any access to the source, then that, by definition is not open-source. Or do you mean something different by "protect the source"? Perhaps you could clarify just what kind of "protections" you're looking for.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 08:16 PM   #10
kushalkoolwal
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Middle of nowhere
Distribution: Debian Squeeze
Posts: 1,249

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdaHacker View Post
In what way? If you're saying you want to give someone a binay but deny then any access to the source, then that, by definition is not open-source. Or do you mean something different by "protect the source"? Perhaps you could clarify just what kind of "protections" you're looking for.

Yes, but that's just what broad Open Source means. There are numerous FOSS licenses (like GPL,FreeBSD,LGPL,MIT,etc) that you can choose to distribute with your program which you have developed using Open Source software.

I am also relatively new to this entire licensing thing so even I am learning.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 08:38 PM   #11
AdaHacker
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Brockport, NY
Distribution: Kubuntu
Posts: 384

Rep: Reputation: 31
Just to be explicit: am I correct in thinking that you do not want to let people see the source to your program?

If that's the case, then why do you want an open-source license? It just doesn't make sense. If you're not letting people see the source, then it's just not open-source. The entire point of an open-source license is to give other people the right to modify your code. Why would you want a license that's designed to do the opposite of what you're looking for?
 
Old 02-14-2008, 09:44 PM   #12
salcedo
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
The parts of the GPL that require you to give access to the source code are section 6 of GPL v3 (or section 3 of GPL v1 and v2).

The main difference between the GPL and LGPL is not your source, but third party programs that make use of your source. Any new programs that use your GPLed source must themselves be GPL. Some call this the GPL "virus." LGPL on the other hand says that "derivatives", or modified versions, must be LGPL, but anyone can write a separate program that only makes reference (i.e. calls) the LGPLed source without being forced to use an open source license.

GPL does give you copyright protection so that others cannot distribute modified versions and claim that they are the original thing. They can distribute their modified versions, but must give credit to the original and must state that it is modified. But that doesn't sound like the type of protection you are looking for.

Read the license though, it's really not that hard to read.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 10:03 PM   #13
kushalkoolwal
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Middle of nowhere
Distribution: Debian Squeeze
Posts: 1,249

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by salcedo View Post
The parts of the GPL that require you to give access to the source code are section 6 of GPL v3 (or section 3 of GPL v1 and v2).

The main difference between the GPL and LGPL is not your source, but third party programs that make use of your source. Any new programs that use your GPLed source must themselves be GPL. Some call this the GPL "virus." LGPL on the other hand says that "derivatives", or modified versions, must be LGPL, but anyone can write a separate program that only makes reference (i.e. calls) the LGPLed source without being forced to use an open source license.

GPL does give you copyright protection so that others cannot distribute modified versions and claim that they are the original thing. They can distribute their modified versions, but must give credit to the original and must state that it is modified. But that doesn't sound like the type of protection you are looking for.

Read the license though, it's really not that hard to read.
salcedo, you are awesome! Your explanation has been close to what I was looking for. Actually I do understand GPL but when I read LGPL I get confuse. I will try to read LGPL again based on your comments in this post.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 11:58 PM   #14
armandino101
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 14

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by kushalkoolwal View Post
I beg to differ but it is not the case that you are thinking. One can protect the source code and it can still be called open-source or free software.
I'm not sure you understand what open source means. Read the 2nd point of the OSI's definition of open source . If you don't provide the source code, then you software is not open source. Hence the word open.
 
Old 02-15-2008, 04:14 AM   #15
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Such a funny question, I'd like to know how you're NOT going to provide the source code to a shell script.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: LINA Source Code Released Under GPL v2 for Windows, Mac, and Linux Developers LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-19-2007 09:41 PM
Driver for Airgo's 3rd Generation TRUE MIMO WiFi card with Source code under GPL Siva4Linux Linux - Wireless Networking 1 04-10-2007 05:34 AM
LXer: Sun picks GPL license for Java code LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 11-13-2006 05:54 AM
GPL license pangfai Linux - General 4 05-08-2006 07:23 AM
LXer: Gpl 3.0: Open Source Renews Its License LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-05-2006 06:01 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:50 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration