LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 10-21-2005, 04:39 AM   #1
sureshkellemane
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 53

Rep: Reputation: 15
Clarification on GNU GPL license


Hello All,

Can I have any information on this:

I have GPL code. Let me take the name of the file is GPL_Licensed.c
I will develop a module which will be called from the file GPL_Licensed.c
Let me put my module name as My_module.c I will compile the file and will link to GPL_licensed executable file.

The GPL_Licensed.c file interacts with My_module.c.

Now can i distribute the GPL_licensed executable without providing the source code of My_module.c file.

Thank you very much.
 
Old 10-21-2005, 04:49 AM   #2
SkyEye
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Sri Lanka
Distribution: Fedora (workstations), CentOS (servers), Arch, Mint, Ubuntu, and a few more.
Posts: 441

Rep: Reputation: 40
I think you have to use LGPL to do this. LGPL stands for Lesser GPL.

I don't think you can use GPL and get the same thing done legally.
 
Old 10-21-2005, 07:26 AM   #3
BoldKiller
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Distribution: Debian, Gentoo, RedHat
Posts: 142

Rep: Reputation: 15
You could also build GLP_license.c file into a dynamic librairy. Ditribute that as GPL or LGPL.

Then my_module.c could dynamicly call the code in your librayry. Not be staticly likned with it. Then you can distribute your cade under the license you want. You are not tied in with the GPL conditions.

But when you say my_module.c, do you mean module as in kernel module? because if thats the case you cannot (as far as I know) use dynamic librairy. You can hower make 2 module.
GLP_license.c->GPL_module.o
my>module.c->my_module.o

Load GLP_module first and simply call its function from my_module.o


Basicly, as long as you dont compile and link with GPL code, you are free to do what ever you want. (actually its a little more complex than that, but this is the general idea)
I know there are quite a few good ressource out there comparing the different kind of licenses with many details.
 
Old 10-21-2005, 12:20 PM   #4
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Lubuntu
Posts: 19,176
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430
If you licence something under the GPL you have to make the source code available. This can be as part of the software download, in a seperate space of your server or on cd, whatever method you use if someone requests the code, you have to give it to them.
 
Old 10-21-2005, 10:22 PM   #5
sureshkellemane
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 53

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Thanks a lot for all

<<Boldkiller : But when you say my_module.c, do you mean module as in kernel module? >>

No...I am not developing the kernel module.

Actually it is a ghostscript. From the existing ghostscript code, I am planning to call my code. The ghostscript is a GPL code. I will build the RPM and distribute it. Is it legally OK ?

Do you have any suggestion on this for me?
 
Old 10-22-2005, 10:34 AM   #6
BoldKiller
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Distribution: Debian, Gentoo, RedHat
Posts: 142

Rep: Reputation: 15
Re: Clarification on GNU GPL license

Quote:
Originally posted by sureshkellemane
Now can i distribute the GPL_licensed executable without providing the source code of My_module.c file.
[/B]
I just want to clarify something. Do you mean you want to package the source in the package (for size issues) OR do you want your code to not be open source?

Last edited by BoldKiller; 10-22-2005 at 11:35 AM.
 
Old 10-24-2005, 12:37 AM   #7
sureshkellemane
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 53

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
No sir,

I want to add the device/driver to ghostscript but my stuffs should not be opensource.

Otherway , the GPL_licensed executable should have my module feature with it but the My module feature source code should not become opensource at this point of time.

Thanks a lot
 
Old 10-24-2005, 06:06 AM   #8
BoldKiller
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Distribution: Debian, Gentoo, RedHat
Posts: 142

Rep: Reputation: 15
Then, what I suggested above is the only approach.
When you compile your module, it must not staticly link (as in being a part of) with any GPL code. You can owhever "Call" GPL code at run time dynamicly. In other words, you can USE the PRODUCT that resulted from the GPL code. But not the code it self. If you do that, you are free to use what ever license you want.

Here's 2 example to help clarify:
1- GCC is an open source compiler. But when you write code and compile it with it, your code is not GPL. Thats because you are using the product (as you would a word processor).
2- When using an GUI API tool kit (QT, wx, Win32, etc) your code license is not restricted by
the use of the tool kit. (Win32 native application can be open source, QT application can be closed source). Again this is because you are using the product. Your program will use the feature provided by those environment, but it is not a PART of that environement.

I dont know know exactly how Ghost Script works with "drivers", but as long as it is a different file (in windows it would be a seperate dll), your driver codes can be closed source. BTW, there are many cases where that has been done for device drivers in the kernel (PWC webcams, ATI graphic drivers, etc) They are closed source drivers simply using hooks in the kernel. The hook is open source, the rest of the driver is not.

I hope this helps to clarify things for you
 
Old 10-24-2005, 10:06 PM   #9
sureshkellemane
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 53

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Thanks a lot for your valuable suggestions..
 
Old 10-24-2005, 11:00 PM   #10
AwesomeMachine
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: USA and Italy
Distribution: Debian jessie/sid; OpenSuSE; Fedora
Posts: 1,593

Rep: Reputation: 162Reputation: 162
Why would you want to distribute a module without source. Every package you distribute doesn't need source. You just need to make the source available in one package. You can still distribute precompiled binaries, as long as the source is available somewhere, and you tell people where they can get it.
 
Old 10-25-2005, 06:04 AM   #11
BoldKiller
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Distribution: Debian, Gentoo, RedHat
Posts: 142

Rep: Reputation: 15
Its not that he does not want to distribute the package with source.
He does not want his modue to be open source.
 
  


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 Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the GNU Free Documentation License (the GPL for books)? case1984 Linux - General 3 05-25-2007 03:39 PM
GPL license pangfai Linux - General 4 05-08-2006 06:23 AM
GPL License - Is this OK? photoguy123 Linux - General 1 11-07-2005 06:13 PM
GPL license questions Rotwang Programming 12 07-05-2005 08:09 PM
QT to be released under the GPL license jeremy Programming 4 03-16-2005 03:39 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38 AM.

Main Menu
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