Hi all,
Not sure whether it’s a question for this newsgroup or not, but to my
mind it seems the most relevant one.
The QRTP package includes some GNU binaries which fall under GPL
licensing scheme. Our customer wants to use some of them in their
commercial target system. Would such a thing be legal?
Thank you.
First of all, I am not a lawyer but my understanding of the GPL is that
binaries may be used and distributed in any system, commercial or otherwise,
provided that the source is available. If you are using GNU binaries
provided by us then you are not violating the terms of the GPL for two
reasons:
The vast majority of our binaries are compiled from the standard GNU
distributed source with no modifications. The source is available from
gnu.org and thus, is in compliance with the license agreement.
We provide on our website the source code to all of the GNU utilities
which are modified.
My opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it however so you may like
to consult your attorney.
cheers,
Kris
Nikolai Gorbunov <n.gorbunov@swd.ru> wrote:
Hi all,
Not sure whether it’s a question for this newsgroup or not, but to my
mind it seems the most relevant one.The QRTP package includes some GNU binaries which fall under GPL
licensing scheme. Our customer wants to use some of them in their
commercial target system. Would such a thing be legal?Thank you.
- Nick
–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.”
– Douglas Adams
QNX is a commercial system, and it includes GNU binaries. The only
requirement as far as the GPL goes, is that all of the changes that
one makes to the GPL source code must be published, and available, under
the same (GPL) license. The basic rule is that none of the code
published under the GPL can be included in a binary for which the source
is not available under the GPL. There is one exception, and this is
often applied to libraries, called the LGPL, which allows one to link
GPL object code against proprietary software. Of course the library
source is still subject to the GPL, but your proprietary source code is
not.
DISCLAIMER: This is my interpretation of the “spirit” of the GPL. I am
not a lawyer, and the prior statement does not constitute a professional
legal opinion on the ramifications of the GPL, for an authoritative
opinion, obtain a copy of the GPL, and consult with an attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nikolai Gorbunov [mailto:n.gorbunov@swd.ru]
Posted At: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 4:02 AM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: GNU binaries in a commercial system?
Subject: GNU binaries in a commercial system?
Hi all,
Not sure whether it’s a question for this newsgroup or not, but to my
mind it seems the most relevant one.
The QRTP package includes some GNU binaries which fall under GPL
licensing scheme. Our customer wants to use some of them in their
commercial target system. Would such a thing be legal?
Thank you.
The GNU programs distributed by QNX are not licensed to you by QNX, but rather
by their respective copyright holders. Nothing we say will have any bearing
on your rights and obligations under that license (i.e. we’re not the
ones you need to engage for permission). I recommend that you carefully
study the terms of the GPL, in consultation with a lawyer, to determine the
ramifications of using GPLed code in your particular commercial system.
Another option is to contact the copyright holder and enquire about licensing
the component under different terms if the GPL is too restrictive for you.
Kris Eric Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote:
First of all, I am not a lawyer but my understanding of the GPL is that
binaries may be used and distributed in any system, commercial or otherwise,
provided that the source is available. If you are using GNU binaries
provided by us then you are not violating the terms of the GPL for two
reasons:
- The vast majority of our binaries are compiled from the standard GNU
distributed source with no modifications. The source is available from
gnu.org and thus, is in compliance with the license agreement.
This isn’t necessarily true. The GPL makes a distinction between commercial
and non-commercial use with respect to your obligations to provide source
code:
This is from the GPL version 2:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source
code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to
give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only
for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in
object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with
ubsection b above.)
…etc.
Note that option (c) would not be available for a commercial distribution,
so it would not suffice to just point to QNX saying that the
source code is available from us.
I am not a lawyer - I’d suggest again that you consult one.
–
Eric Johnson
QNX Software Systems Ltd.
“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9F3C2@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…
QNX is a commercial system, and it includes GNU binaries. The only
requirement as far as the GPL goes, is that all of the changes that
one makes to the GPL source code must be published, and available, under
the same (GPL) license. The basic rule is that none of the code
published under the GPL can be included in a binary for which the source
is not available under the GPL. There is one exception, and this is
often applied to libraries, called the LGPL, which allows one to link
GPL object code against proprietary software. Of course the library
source is still subject to the GPL, but your proprietary source code is
not.
However, the LGPL does seem to require that you distribute your proprietary
object files along with the executable so that the recipient can rebuild
your proprietary application with an updated LGPL library.
DISCLAIMER: This is my interpretation of the “spirit” of the GPL. I am
not a lawyer, and the prior statement does not constitute a professional
legal opinion on the ramifications of the GPL, for an authoritative
opinion, obtain a copy of the GPL, and consult with an attorney.-----Original Message-----
From: Nikolai Gorbunov [mailto:> n.gorbunov@swd.ru> ]
Posted At: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 4:02 AM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: GNU binaries in a commercial system?
Subject: GNU binaries in a commercial system?
Hi all,Not sure whether it’s a question for this newsgroup or not, but to my
mind it seems the most relevant one.The QRTP package includes some GNU binaries which fall under GPL
licensing scheme. Our customer wants to use some of them in their
commercial target system. Would such a thing be legal?Thank you.
- Nick
Marty Doane <marty.doane@rapistan.com> wrote:
“Rennie Allen” <> RAllen@csical.com> > wrote in message
news:> 64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9F3C2@exchangecal.hq.csical.com> …
QNX is a commercial system, and it includes GNU binaries. The only
requirement as far as the GPL goes, is that all of the changes that
one makes to the GPL source code must be published, and available, under
the same (GPL) license. The basic rule is that none of the code
published under the GPL can be included in a binary for which the source
is not available under the GPL. There is one exception, and this is
often applied to libraries, called the LGPL, which allows one to link
GPL object code against proprietary software. Of course the library
source is still subject to the GPL, but your proprietary source code is
not.However, the LGPL does seem to require that you distribute your proprietary
object files along with the executable so that the recipient can rebuild
your proprietary application with an updated LGPL library.
IANAL either but I believe it’s ok to ship the LGPL lib as a shared library
that all the apps use, so the recipient can just rebuild the library and
all the proprietary apps get the changes, no need to ship the proprietary
object files in this case (of course if you link the application statically
then you would be required ship the .o’s).
My interpretation anyways.
– drempel