[ome-devel] My read of GLPL

[Chris Allan]

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 02:49:02AM +0000, John Kalstrom wrote:
> 

Hi John.

> I intend to create a commercial product that uses OME.  I've been reading the GNU Library Public License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/library.html#SEC3).  I'd heard before that GLPL doesn't require anything as long as the open software is unmodified.  I can still sell the overall product and not include source (especially, non-OME source).

The critical thing to remember about the GPL and LGPL is that it is an
open source license not a free software license. There is nothing in the
GPL that says you cannot charge for your software, or that you cannot
charge for the distribution of that software. RedHat is a perfect
example of a company that provides open source software for a fee.
What it does say, is that you, the developer will make the source freely
available to those who ask for it.

When it comes to the LGPL -- the way in which our software is licensed
-- you are free to make whatever "additions" you wish outside the realm
of the OME software, charge for those additions and not include the
source. This of course includes things like a proprietary web interface
built on top of the OME Perl modules, proprietary Perl scripts build on
those Perl modules, proprietary analysis modules, proprietary symantic
types, proprietary importers, etc.

> 
> But there were some things that I didn't know, and I wanted to verify that I hadn't misread them, or overlooked any additional requirements.
>   #4 If OME "binaries" (I'm including perl / XML here) are included, OME source must be included

If *any* OME binaries or libraries are required by your software
unmodified, no effort must be made on your part to include the OME
source. If you are distributing OME binaries or libraries, you must
provide the source that was used to create the files distributed.

>   #6 If OME is modified, everything must be included so that the user can make more modifications to OME, and create a working product.  Also, the documentation and/or program must state that OME is being used.  And include a copy of the GLPL.

If you were to make changes to the OME binaries or libraries you would
have to make those changes available to whomever asks for them. To my
knowledge, the LGPL makes no such requirement on "acknowledgements" in
the documentation or program. Obviously, I am not a lawyer, so don't
take my words as legally binding. :) If you wanted to include OME with
your software, you would have to include the LGPL with it, etc. in terms
with the LGPL license.

> 
> I was really concerned about the 3 years thing, 6b, but it sounds like satisfying 6a (including everything needed to "rebuild") elminates that.
> 
> Questions:
> 1) I want to verify that I can still charge for the overall product, even if OME is modified.

As above, GNU licenses are not about freedom from monetary costs. You
could charge $10,000 for a CD with the OME source code on it if you so
desired.

> 2) Also, do I need to make the modified OME source available to those who _haven't_ purchased the overall product?  (I expect that they'll be specific to the product, not new features, so I doubt anyone would want them...)

Yes, any changes you make to the OME source code must be made available
to those who ask for it.

> 
> (#4 gets messier when I want to include copies of perl and apache, but I'll cross that bridge if this project even gets that far.)

Not sure why you'd want to be become a distributer of Perl and/or Apache
but if you wanted to, yes, you'd have to make the source code available
for both.

> 
> John Kalstrom

Hope this helps. Feel free to ask any more questions you might have.

Ciao.

-Chris