On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:40:05 -0700 "jdow" <jdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry - if I purchase a copy of your product and it is GPL licensed I > can ask for the source, expect to receive it, and then start selling > it myself with near zero development overhead. I can also purchase it > once and give it to all my friends, source and all. I can basically > wipe out your business if I've a mind to. It'd all be legal. It might > be unethical as all hell. But it'd be legal. I dont _think_ anyone would disagree with you here Joanne. The traditional product-based model of selling software doesn't work with GPL software. > Have you looked at the KDE license chain lately? Have you looked at > licensing device drivers for Linux lately. Even if you build and > release "glue" code and try to include a proprietary module people > are claiming that the glue code and your proprietary module are > all one project so the proprietary module is now GPLed. They may > still be quibbling over a proprietary driver developed specifically > for one OS and later on a glue module produced for Linux. Many are > saying that if it's the same company doing both then it's "obvious" > that the glue module was all part of that one project hence the > contamination is real. If you're extending a GPL work such as Linux then it seems to fall under its licensing terms. But that's all for the lawyers to decide; if you're going to link with a GPL offering you better damn well understand the legal ramifications. The point of the GPL is to keep people who don't want to play by the rules out of the loop. It must be working well since Les and other whiners like him are not in short supply. Sean
