Linux - GeneralThis 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
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
