Re: about GNU GPL

[Michael Talbot-Wilson <mtw birdseye view net au>]

Ye 2003-05-09 20:19 -0300, Lucas Clemente Vella skribis:

> musicinsect_2000 wrote:
> >    Even now I still don't understand if I use a purely free develop tool such
> > as GTK to write a software, can I sale it? My sofeware is wrote by myself or
> > my company without other's GPL code,  is my sofeware privatel own?
> >    Use a free toolkit to develop a sofeware , it doesn't mean my product is
> > free or GPL,isn't it?
> I suggest you to search in www.gnu.org first.
> If you use a GPL library, you have to put under the GPL license all the
> programs you made whit it, othewise, your program will be illegal.
> But if you use a LGPL (Lesser GPL) library, you can make your program
> proprietary. I don't remember if the GKT is under the GPL or LGPL, look
> in www.gtk.org.
> If you make your program GPL, you can sell it legally, but you HAVE to
> distribute the source together. Free Software does not mean Freeware.

In either case you can sell it.  In either case the software THAT YOU
WROTE is your own.

As to "privately", it depends on what you mean by that word.  GTK+-2.0
was released under the GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (sic) Version
2, June 1991.  It says (quoting what I personally think are the key
clauses):  "For example, if you distribute copies of the library,
whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the
rights that we gave you.  You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code.  If you link a program with the library,
you must provide complete object files to the recipients so that they
can relink them with the library, after making changes to the library
and recompiling it.  And you must show them these terms so they know
their rights."

That means, IN EVERY CASE, you must distribute the *.o files, even if
you linked staticly.  You don't have to distribute your own source
code, only the unlinked *.o (or any any other object format) files
obtained by separately compiling your own source code.

If, on the other hand, you have taken code out of the library and
incorporated it directly into your program, that program is in
violation of copyright UNLESS you opt (as the licence gives you the
right to do) to place it under the GPL.  In that case YOUR CODE is
placed under the GPL.  You can still sell it, but you must release the
source code, the code that you wrote, under the terms (including terms
of publicity) imposed by the GPL.  Then it is NOT privately yours, if
by "privately" you mean the right to sole and confidential possession
of the source code.

It is not possible for you to contract out of these obligations,
except by contracting separately with all of the actual copyright
owners.  If it were purely your own work, if you did NOT use GTK or
any GPL/LGPL software in it, you might still choose to distribute it
as free software under the GPL/LGPL.  In that case, as sole copyright
owner, you would retain the right to waive the GPL/LGPL restrictions
by making other arrangements with particular clients.  You DO NOT HAVE
that right if you have incorporated code or linked to code that you
are not the proprietor of, and that is under the GPL/LGPL.

If you find there is a limited amount of code that you want to use,
and you can identify the actual copyright owner, it is open to you to
discuss a private deal with that person (or those few persons).  This
applies even where copyright is actually owned by the FSF, but I doubt
that they would be receptive to such deals.

I dunno why you ask others in a mailing list about such a matter.
Read the copyright of the GTK, and then read the LGPL.  I have given a
purely private interpretation.  It is your responsibility, solely, to
comply with the copyright.

If you search <http://www.gnu.org> you will find that the GPL and LGPL
have been translated into many languages, including (if I guess
rightly) your own.

You say "purely free software tool such as GTK".  That is almost
meaningless language.  GTK is strictly free, rather than purely free.
Specifically, it is libera, but not (necessarily) gratuita.