Paul Pang | 3 Apr 17:49 2003
Picon

GPL and software timeout/expiration

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am considering starting a new project that would 
leverage the source code of an existing GPL software. 
My software would be released under the GPL with
source code available for download and original 
copyright notices. To cover my development costs 
(the GPL portion is a very small part of the 
software) I am planning on charging customers. I 
understand that I can sell the binary software online
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html) so long
as I comply with the GPL license and make the source
code available freely.

What is not clear to me is how I can charge for the
software. What I have seen is people charging upfront
then making the binary available for download (an 
example of this is Phat Linux.) In my case I would
like the software to timeout after a period of time 
(say thirty days) after which the user would have to
pay a reasonable fee to register it. I would like to
know whether this complies with the GPL or not.

Best regards,

-Pang Paul

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
(Continue reading)

Rui Miguel Seabra | 3 Apr 19:10 2003

Re: GPL and software timeout/expiration

Hi,

On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 16:49, Paul Pang wrote:
> In my case I would
> like the software to timeout after a period of time 
> (say thirty days) after which the user would have to
> pay a reasonable fee to register it. I would like to
> know whether this complies with the GPL or not.

First and foremost, you must take in mind that I'm not a member of the FSF
nor a Lawyer.

The GNU GPL is a Free Software license, so it provides to the user the
following four freedoms:

 0. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
 1. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
    needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. 
 2. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour.  
 3. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
    the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the
    source code is a precondition for this.

Before even considering the GNU GPL, you are saying that you want to
restrict the user from running the program after a certain period of
time.

If and only if you distribute the sources for the same program, it seems
to me that you can do as you are in effect propose, but bear in mind
that that it is not very ethic to demand for a repeated payment for
(Continue reading)

eg171 | 10 Apr 12:46 2003
Picon

None

Hi,

Im a student at City University, London and am currently carrying out a 
project on Free and Open Source software.

As part of this project I am hoping to produce a web site that would give 
help and advice to novices on releasing free software.

I would appreciate some input as to what kind of advice I should have on 
the site. For example what topics ahould I include.

Thanks for reading this mail and hope to hear from some of you soon.

Regards,
Vish
Peppo Herney | 14 Apr 14:01 2003
Picon
Picon

gpl licensing

Hello,

My company would like to use a product under the gpl license (namely
swish-e), but they want to sell and not make the whole source code open. In
the FAQ
I read that it is possible to use gpl software only when makeing the rest
gpl
too. The question:
Is it possible to have a "subproduct" open source, which also makes sense as
a stand alone, and then use this product for our purpuses?
Who judges this?
It was hard for me to find exact information, about how such things are
handled practicly.

best regards 
peppo herney

--

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte l├Ącheln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!
Rui Miguel Seabra | 14 Apr 15:29 2003

Re: gpl licensing

Hi there,

On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 12:01, Peppo Herney wrote:
> My company would like to use a product under the gpl license (namely
> swish-e), but they want to sell and not make the whole source code open. In
> the FAQ I read that it is possible to use gpl software only when makeing the
> rest gpl too.

You only have to make available under the terms of the GNU GPL some
software if you are making derivate works and/or redistributing software
licensed under the GNU GPL.

If your company's software only fork()s and exec()s in order to use the
GNU GPL software, then it is okay (although I pity the users of your
company's software).

However, you can't turn some software licensed under the GNU GPL into
proprietary software, neither derivate works.

That's what said in the FAQ and you confused something.

> The question: Is it possible to have a "subproduct" open source, which also
> makes sense as a stand alone, and then use this product for our purpuses?

You can run any Free Software[1] program in anyway you like. You just
can't turn GPL'ed software into proprietary software, whatever
modifications you do.

> Who judges this?

(Continue reading)

Sandeep Randhawa | 17 Apr 18:17 2003
Picon

Regarding MS Acess Project

Hi,
   I was a dudd and wrote out a fine little piece of
software for managing Drug samples in physician
clinics based on FDA's National Drug Codes. The only
reason I had to do it in access was that the person
who asked me to write it wanted access since that was
all he knew and was able to test on, And even though
I'm really a Javaite I sneaked thru the Bulls**t MS$
Code (Access and Vb) and wrote it out.
   I know I should have known better. My question is,
is it possible to GPL that project? Since I don't want
to manage that project anymore and I only do
opensource programming. I know it'll probably die
anyways.
   Don't like MS .(Period) .

Sandeep Randhawa MD

On another note: Maybe I should write out a J2ee
version of it.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
Lewis Collard | 18 Apr 02:30 2003
Picon

Re: Regarding MS Acess Project

Sandeep Randhawa <sands_in <at> yahoo.com> sed:
> Hi,
>
> [snip: micros~1 bashing.]
>
>    I know I should have known better. My question is,
> is it possible to GPL that project? Since I don't want
> to manage that project anymore and I only do
> opensource programming. I know it'll probably die
> anyways.

Yes.

>    Don't like MS .(Period) .
> 
> Sandeep Randhawa MD

lewis

> On another note: Maybe I should write out a J2ee
> version of it.

Or avoid making your previous mistake and write an implementation
which can be compiled/run exclusively by free software; J2EE does
not fulfill this requirement, to my knowledge. Your choice, but
remember that Microsoft is a symptom, not the problem.

Further reading:

 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
(Continue reading)


Gmane