Re: Clearing up the License Confusion

This message was sent from: GNU General Public License
http://forums.oscommerce.com/viewtopic.php?p=126889#126889
----------------------------------------------------------------

[quote="atwong"]Basically, if you use GPL code, attach anything to it, it is also GPL.[/quote]

Yes, this is the viral effect of the GPL license. That is why all contributions are under the GPL license, and why all work discussed in the forums are to be released under the GPL license.

[quote="atwong"]Not only that, me, you, or anyone else can request the source code and binaries.  End of story.[/quote]

Not quite.

The GPL license mainly discusses binary related issues - meaning, if you receive a binary file you can also get the source code for it.

Just because a solution is under the GPL license does not mean you have the right to the work involved. By that I mean, you have no right asking all live shops, for example, for their source code.

[quote="atwong"]So say for instance... you built a snazzy addon to osCommerce like AI that will recommend you a product.  Guess what, I can request the source code and binaries from you.[/quote]

No, I don't have to give you anything if I was the author. See above.

[quote="atwong"]And then I can actually resell it or redistrabute it.[/quote]

Yes, though only under the GPL license.

[quote="atwong"]What if I hired a consultant and he built addon.  I pay him for it.  Shouldn't I own it (whole/just my changes)?  Nope.... doesn't matter. You might have paid for him time, but the OS GPL Community now owns that code (if it's publicially assessable).   Guess what, if I see it, and I know it's GPL, I can ask for it, source and binaries.[/quote]

The copyright is actually attached to the author that made the work.

And yes, you could probably ask for the work but it's another thing altogether if the authors decides to give it to you or not.

[quote="atwong"]GPL was made so that no one can claim ownership of the code.  From the first alpha form to all it's mutations and children (very, very few exceptions. You have a slightly better chance getting a date with Julia Roberts).[/quote]

Wrong. The author decides exactly how their own work can be distributed.

If osCommerce was 100% written by myself, I could decide to release it under another license, or together with the GPL license (called dual licensing).

[quote="atwong"]Now i'm going to go to all the "featured" sites and see what cool functions I can cherry pick.  *** Note: It's code that I can cherry pick.  GPL doesn't mean I can grab their site.  I can grab all the code but they wouldn't have to give me the images, and the database data and structure.[/quote]

That's also wrong.

[quote="atwong"]Last two cents, personally, I would much rather has seen this software using Apache Software License or LGPL. More freedom to assert my changes are mine and I can do almost anything I want with it.[/quote]

What makes you so sure of that, seeing as the points you raised with the GPL license are wrong? Maybe your thoughts on the Apache/LGPL licenses are also wrong?