[lug] May 9th talk topics

Peter Hutnick peter-lists at hutnick.com
Thu May 2 23:33:39 MDT 2002


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 02 May 2002 09:56 pm, D. Stimits wrote:

> I'd like to know just how much of
> gpl and lgpl a business can use internally, not as a product, but just
> getting the daily job done, without fear.

and

> I'd like to know about the interesting things that
> can be done by the author of software such that it is licensed using
> multiple licenses.

I wouldn't mind addressing these two and a few other things at the meeting.  
But IANAL ;-)

First, let me say, if you are a "Free Software advocate/enthusiast" or even an 
"Open Sourcer" or  . . . well, if you are on this list, PLEASE read the GPL.  
Please?  The ratio of the number of people who have an opinion on the GPL to 
the number of people who have read it, beginning to end, for comprehension, 
never fails to stagger my mind.  It is available in an easy-to-digest HTML 
caplet at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html.

The answer to the first thing is . . . all of it.  The GPL places no limits on 
/use/ of "the Software" and one needn't even agree to the terms of the GPL in 
order to use "the Software".  This seems to be an instance of the common 
misconception that the GPL is an EULA, which it absolutely isn't.  The fact 
is that a company may use any part of the source code of any program (or a 
derivative binary) they receive under the terms of the GPL in ANY WAY THEY 
SEE FIT as long as they don't "redistribute" it.  Upon redistribution, 
modified or unmodified, AND ONLY AT THAT TIME, are they even bound by the 
GPL.  The license could be interpreted as being in effect at the time a 
company modifies a GPLed work, but since it places no restrictions on that 
company unless and until they distribute that derivative work the point is 
moot.

The second one is just as easy, the copyright holder of a piece of software is 
not precluded from licensing his software under any other non-exclusive 
license by the GPL.*  That license could be contrary to every principal of 
the GPL and it doesn't matter.  The GPL is an non-exclusive license. 

In fact, these are both FAQs that are answered at 
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic and 
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HeardOtherLicense respectively.

- -Peter

*To be painfully literal, he isn't precluded from licensing his software under 
an exclusive license by the GPL either, but by definition he /would/ be by 
the exclusive license.  This wouldn't affect existing copies (which is to say 
that holders of existing copies could still redistribute under the GPL) but 
the copyright holder would not be able to distribute under the terms of the 
GPL, and would probably not have a great relationship with the other party in 
the exclusive license agreement, since this would almost certainly not be 
what they meant by "exclusive."

- -- 
/"\ ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
\ /
 X   Get my PGP key at http://hutnick.com/pgp
/ \  6128 5651 6F23 EC17 6EBD  737D 960A 20E6 76CA 8A59
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE80iEzlgog5nbKilkRAsUwAKCQ2dArFPNo9m+Te27eYni00ZQHqACfQutE
3xii33vccPaQps3J9xL21Co=
=Q3C4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the LUG mailing list