On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:05:13 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> OK, so I have some software released under the GPL, and I don't feel
>>> like reading through 250 pages of dense legalese. So can anybody tell
>>> me... is it legal to use such software for commercial work?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes.
> 
> Heh. That was easy... :-)

GPL is about distribution, not about usage of the software.  Its purpose 
is to ensure that code released under the GPL that's modified isn't only 
redistributed in binary form, but that the modifications to the GPL'ed 
code are also made available under the GPL.

There's no prohibition on usage of the code nor is there a prohibition on 
selling the software as a product or part of a product.  But the source 
code *must* be made available.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:41:23 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> I wasn't aware which exact licence Linux uses. 

Technically, it doesn't, though many distributions provide an EULA of 
sorts.  Each component can have its own copyright and license terms.

> (Although arguably the
> fact that they want people to call it "GNU/Linux" should have been a
> giveaway...)

Not really, GNU doesn't necessarily imply GPL (though it's certainly most 
likely).  Could be LGPL as well.  But also most include Firefox or 
Mozilla, which are MPL.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:41:23 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>> I wasn't aware which exact licence Linux uses.
> 
> Technically, it doesn't, though many distributions provide an EULA of
> sorts.  Each component can have its own copyright and license terms.

Linux, as a *kernel*, of course has a license. It's the GPLv2.

A GNU/Linux operating system distribution, to use Stallman-compliant
terminology nitpicking, is a package of a lot of software that may each
have its own licensing.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I wasn't aware which exact licence Linux uses. (Although arguably the
> fact that they want people to call it "GNU/Linux" should have been a
> giveaway...)

They want to call the common operating system GNU/Linux because it's a GNU
operating system running the Linux kernel. It has nothing to do with the
Linux kernel license.

Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is a GNU variant with the FreeBSD kernel, which is not
GPL-licensed.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:14:14 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:41:23 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 
>>> I wasn't aware which exact licence Linux uses.
>> 
>> Technically, it doesn't, though many distributions provide an EULA of
>> sorts.  Each component can have its own copyright and license terms.
> 
> Linux, as a *kernel*, of course has a license. It's the GPLv2.

True, though it is commonly referred to as "the Linux kernel" - the usage 
Andy wrote about (GNU/Linux) is a system, components of which are under a 
variety of licenses. :-)

> A GNU/Linux operating system distribution, to use Stallman-compliant
> terminology nitpicking, is a package of a lot of software that may each
> have its own licensing.

Yup.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is a GNU variant with the FreeBSD kernel, which is not
> GPL-licensed.

  Before Sun Microsystems made their Solaris operating system open source,
was there any free Unix-based operating system out there which was *not*
based on GNU? Was there even any which was not based on gcc and its system
libraries?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:07:42 -0400 schrieb Warp:

> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is a GNU variant with the FreeBSD kernel, which is
>> not GPL-licensed.
> 
>   Before Sun Microsystems made their Solaris operating system open
>   source,
> was there any free Unix-based operating system out there which was *not*
> based on GNU? Was there even any which was not based on gcc and its
> system libraries?

Didn't some BSD variants came with at least their own binutils at some 
point? As far as I understand the BSD variants are historically not GNU 
systems in the sense that they were developed by the FSF as a free OS - 
even if they use GNU software as compilers today.

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a807e0e@news.povray.org>,
Warp wrote:

> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is a GNU variant with the FreeBSD kernel, which is not
>> GPL-licensed.
>
>   Before Sun Microsystems made their Solaris operating system open source,
> was there any free Unix-based operating system out there which was *not*
> based on GNU? Was there even any which was not based on gcc and its system
> libraries?

How much non-gnu must a system be to be non-gnu? I think the answer
here is all BSD systems which were free. At least today, you can run a
BSD system without most GNU software, but it will be a pity to miss
out on a whole lot of good software. For instance, forget the GCC.
But, strictly, I think the BSD systems could run on their own, even if
compiled by GNU.

(*) Changing subject

Although I see no problem in discussing terminology, I must say that
when discussing merits, we defeat the purpose of the Free movements.
They want things to be Free. Most people will agree on the very
fundamental principles; Freedom, Openness, et cetera. Then they fight
on petty issues, and segregate. Then everyone loses.

My most favorite example is the set of DJB tools. In 1996, I think, I
believe qmail was already released. The best mailer around. Until
today, no important system brings it default. The best UNIX mailer,
not included. 

``Of course! It is not Free.'' (Now it is, but it wasn't.) Let's see
what it has always been, though. It has always been best, open, and
allowed anyone to make changes to it through patches, which allows you
to change it entirely. But somehow this was never enough.

On the bright side, such pressure made him change his mind. Many
packages are now public domain, which was the very Right Thing to do.
His other options were BSD or GPL or similar ones. 

(*) The ridiculousness of the BSD license

The BSD license is the most ridiculous one around. It can be called
the superfluous-egotistical-public-domain-license. 

Superfluous. If your software is popular, your name will never really
be disassociated with it. Who is behind tetex, or texlive? No idea.
But Donald Knuth is certainly the tex guy. 

Egotistical. Kill people with my software, but keep my name on it.
Please please please, keep my name on it. I can't bare the liberty of
other people removing my name from my work. 

Public domain. Do whatever you want with it. Such as kill people or
close your derived work. 

I'm glad to say I cloned a BSD system and built it with qmail default
delivering outgoing mails only, dnscache caching resolutions for local
requests only, with daemontools included running svscan upon boot, and
ucspi-tcp ready to work. Manuals included. I also implemented my
favorite installation procedure:

   install <cd> <disk> 

Zero questions asked. :-)

As far as I'm aware, it's the only UNIX system running the best
mailer. Who would've thought this'd be true still in 2009.

Post a reply to this message

Daniel Bastos <dbastos+0### [at] toledocom> wrote:
> How much non-gnu must a system be to be non-gnu? I think the answer
> here is all BSD systems which were free.

  Which compiler they used to compile themselves, if not gcc?
(I'm just being curious here, because I don't know.)

> The BSD license is the most ridiculous one around. It can be called
> the superfluous-egotistical-public-domain-license. 

  I don't think using the term "public domain" with the BSD license is
correct. The license doesn't remove copyright, which is what "public
domain" means.

  (In fact, most western legal systems don't support the concept of
"removing copyright" from a work at all. In other words, the idea of
publishing something "into the public domain" is not supported by law.
There is no legal mechanism to do that in most countries, AFAIK. Copyright
is not only automatic, it's in fact inevitable. You can't get rid of it.

  The only case where a work loses copyright is by natural expiration
(which is a ridiculously long time). Also certain works by the government
itself are automatically non-copyrighted in most countries, and thus
directly in public domain. However, that's it. No other means.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:01:36 -0400 schrieb Warp:

> Daniel Bastos <dbastos+0### [at] toledocom> wrote:
>> How much non-gnu must a system be to be non-gnu? I think the answer
>> here is all BSD systems which were free.
> 
>   Which compiler they used to compile themselves, if not gcc?
> (I'm just being curious here, because I don't know.)

A search turned up the Portable C Compiler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_C_Compiler

but it looks that it was quite early replaced by gcc.

Post a reply to this message