Hello Everyone. I'm going to embark on a project that will require me to butt heads with some high-level kahunas regarding Linux. I work for a very very big company that has enormous clout but is not as risk-taking as I would like them to be. Anyway my question is: If we decide to use a standard distribution of Linux, are we forced to publish our own source code if we statically or dynamically link to GPL libraries, use gcc to compile and use GPL header files? I'm getting different answers from different sources. We are not planning to change the kernel in any way. Maybe create our own drivers for proprietary hardware and install them at runtime. Can anyone shed a bit more light on this? TIA
On Thursday 22 January 2004 19:04, expatriate wrote:
Hello Everyone.
I'm going to embark on a project that will require me to butt heads with some high-level kahunas regarding Linux. I work for a very very big company that has enormous clout but is not as risk-taking as I would like them to be. Anyway my question is: If we decide to use a standard distribution of Linux, are we forced to publish our own source code if we statically or dynamically link to GPL libraries, use gcc to compile and use GPL header files?
First of all, you only have to publish source for anything if you distribute the programs you develop. If you just use things in-house there is nothing in the GPL that requires you to distribute anything under any circumstances Having said that, if you do link a product you develop either statically or dynamically to GPL licensed libraries, then yes, you have to distribute the source for your code. This is why a lot of libraries are licensed under the LGPL, which doesn't have this requirement. Either way though, you'd only have to distribute the source to the people who buy/download your software. If you just use gcc to develop your source, and not use any GPLed code in any other way, there is also no requirement to GPL your own code. This is all explained in the GPL FAQ at www.gnu.org
I'm getting different answers from different sources. We are not planning to change the kernel in any way. Maybe create our own drivers for proprietary hardware and install them at runtime.
Again, if you just use things for your own benefit and don't distribute things to others, the GPL places no requirements on you whatsoever.
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Thursday 22 January 2004 19:04, expatriate wrote:
Hello Everyone.
I'm going to embark on a project that will require me to butt heads with some high-level kahunas regarding Linux. I work for a very very big company that has enormous clout but is not as risk-taking as I would like them to be. Anyway my question is: If we decide to use a standard distribution of Linux, are we forced to publish our own source code if we statically or dynamically link to GPL libraries, use gcc to compile and use GPL header files?
First of all, you only have to publish source for anything if you distribute the programs you develop. If you just use things in-house there is nothing in the GPL that requires you to distribute anything under any circumstances
Having said that, if you do link a product you develop either statically or dynamically to GPL licensed libraries, then yes, you have to distribute the source for your code. This is why a lot of libraries are licensed under the LGPL, which doesn't have this requirement.
Either way though, you'd only have to distribute the source to the people who buy/download your software.
If you just use gcc to develop your source, and not use any GPLed code in any other way, there is also no requirement to GPL your own code. This is all explained in the GPL FAQ at www.gnu.org
I'm getting different answers from different sources. We are not planning to change the kernel in any way. Maybe create our own drivers for proprietary hardware and install them at runtime.
Again, if you just use things for your own benefit and don't distribute things to others, the GPL places no requirements on you whatsoever.
OK. I think I get the point . This may not be a battle I can win. Now I need to find out what libraries are LGPL. We manufacture high-precision multi-million dollar equipment and our clients are not at all interested in the source code. However, our competitors might be and it would not be good for us to reveal the source code to them (via the usual shenanigans of employee/vendor revolving doors). It seems to me that if we develop a million-line program that uses pthreads we are forced to release the entire source to our vendors. Check mate from our legal department.
On Friday 23 January 2004 00:46, expatriate wrote:
OK. I think I get the point . This may not be a battle I can win. Now I need to find out what libraries are LGPL. We manufacture high-precision multi-million dollar equipment and our clients are not at all interested in the source code. However, our competitors might be and it would not be good for us to reveal the source code to them (via the usual shenanigans of employee/vendor revolving doors). It seems to me that if we develop a million-line program that uses pthreads we are forced to release the entire source to our vendors. Check mate from our legal department.
I think you'll find most of the base stuff, like glibc, is LGPL. Note that apps like Oracle's database, Lotus Domino and other "up-market" stuff isn't GPLed. You can get pretty far by using the LGPL stuff. And if you're developing a GUI for your app, gnome/gtk is also LGPLed
The Friday 2004-01-23 at 01:01 +0100, Anders Johansson wrote:
I think you'll find most of the base stuff, like glibc, is LGPL. Note that apps like Oracle's database, Lotus Domino and other "up-market" stuff isn't GPLed. You can get pretty far by using the LGPL stuff.
What happens for a kernel module? To use a pci card, you need to develop a kernel module. For example, Nvidia drivers I understand have a part that is open source (and needs to be recompiled for each kernel version), but another is completely closed - that makes the kernel say it is tainted, isn't it? How does NVidia do it? Just curious. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
Alle 02:05, sabato 24 gennaio 2004, Carlos E. R. ha scritto:
The Friday 2004-01-23 at 01:01 +0100, Anders Johansson wrote:
I think you'll find most of the base stuff, like glibc, is LGPL. Note that apps like Oracle's database, Lotus Domino and other "up-market" stuff isn't GPLed. You can get pretty far by using the LGPL stuff.
What happens for a kernel module? To use a pci card, you need to develop a kernel module. For example, Nvidia drivers I understand have a part that is open source (and needs to be recompiled for each kernel version), but another is completely closed - that makes the kernel say it is tainted, isn't it? How does NVidia do it?
Just curious.
-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
I read an interview to Linus about that. He said that a driver developed from scratch, the kernel licence needs that driver to be GPL, otherwise, if the code is ported , there is no need for the driver to be GPL. Nvidia drivers are ported from Windows to Linux, so they can remain closed source. Praise
praisetazio wrote:
Alle 02:05, sabato 24 gennaio 2004, Carlos E. R. ha scritto:
The Friday 2004-01-23 at 01:01 +0100, Anders Johansson wrote:
I think you'll find most of the base stuff, like glibc, is LGPL. Note that apps like Oracle's database, Lotus Domino and other "up-market" stuff isn't GPLed. You can get pretty far by using the LGPL stuff.
What happens for a kernel module? To use a pci card, you need to develop a kernel module. For example, Nvidia drivers I understand have a part that is open source (and needs to be recompiled for each kernel version), but another is completely closed - that makes the kernel say it is tainted, isn't it? How does NVidia do it?
Just curious.
-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
I read an interview to Linus about that. He said that a driver developed from scratch, the kernel licence needs that driver to be GPL, otherwise, if the code is ported , there is no need for the driver to be GPL. Nvidia drivers are ported from Windows to Linux, so they can remain closed source.
Praise
This leads to the slippery slope of defining exactly what "ported code" means. If I have to rewrite 70% of the ported code to make it work in a gcc environment using GPL'ed header files, am I violating the GPL if I only supply the binary to my client? This is one of the gray areas I'm having trouble with. What if the code that was ported never really worked in the first place?
Hello All I started a thread some time ago called "GPL Issues" I got some responses which of course generated a bunch more questions. I'm talking to the powers-that-be in my company (which is quite huge, global 500) about moving one of our products' OS from Solaris to Linux. In other words, we make a product that has an embedded computer running Solaris and now we are considering making the same product but running Linux instead. The product is sold to companies who have absolutely no interest in the source code (this is true). Does anyone on this list have experience (that they're willing to share) on their legal issues of porting from Solaris to Linux? I've already been to gnu.org and read all of their GPL and LGPL documentation. Furthermore, my email questions have gone unanswered (probably due to lack of staffing). TIA & Cheers
The Monday 2004-02-02 at 15:49 -0000, expatriate wrote:
I started a thread some time ago called "GPL Issues" I got some
You probably haven't noticed that this is the same thread; ie, you hijacked your own thread. :-p
Does anyone on this list have experience (that they're willing to share) on their legal issues of porting from Solaris to Linux?
No, I haven't... but I'm very interested on this; I could be in your skin anytime. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Thursday 22 January 2004 6:04 pm, expatriate wrote:
like them to be. Anyway my question is: If we decide to use a standard distribution of Linux, are we forced to publish our own source code if we statically or dynamically link to GPL libraries, use gcc to compile and use GPL header files?
Provided you are not distributing binaries outside your organisation you do NOT need to distribute source code. -- Best wishes Kevin Donnelly www.kyfieithu.co.uk - Meddalwedd Rhydd yn Gymraeg
participants (5)
-
Anders Johansson -
Carlos E. R. -
expatriate -
Kevin Donnelly -
praisetazio