Thank you very much, that cleared up quite a bit for me. In regards to the CO. that may sub contract me, they think it's all good. But since they are small, and I am paranoid, I thought I would get a second opinon. :) On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Joseph Sinclair wrote: > Start with the GPL FAQ at (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html), > you'll find some of your questions answered there. > Also read the GPL, if you have concerns, reading the license is the best > place to start (unlike many license that require a law degree to even > halfway understand). > > In regard to services: > First, Copyright only applies to the copyrighted work and it's > distribution. Provided you don't distribute a copy of a work or a > derived work, copyright, generally, doesn't apply. > > Consider a website, that charges a fee to access proprietary content > (say videos of sports, or specialized stock research). Suppose that site > is built using a GPL CMS, runs on GNU/Linux, uses a GPL firewall, > encodes the videos using GPL software, distributes the video content > using OGG/Theora, and stores everything in a GPL database backend. Then, > currently, they have no requirement to release anything under GPL. If > they then distributed their "solution" to others, they would be required > to release any source code changes to the tools to those same persons > under the GPL, but their content is not affected. > > A simpler example; you use the GIMP to create "The Great 21st Century > Masterpiece"(tm), you had to patch the GIMP to get it working on your > "O'Neal Linux"(tm) system, and you post the modified version on your > website for "O'Neal Linux"(tm). The copyright to your "The Great 21st > Century Masterpiece"(tm) is completely unencumbered. The website for > "O'Neal Linux"(tm) must release the source code for your modified GIMP > version in compliance to the GPL license under which the GIMP was > offered to you. > > What the GPL v3 is likely to change is that, in the first scenario, by > delivering a service using GPL software, the new license *may* require > that you provide the source code for any changes to the code used to > deliver that service under GPL. What this would mean is that they would > not have to distribute their "solution" in order to trigger the GPL > release requirement, they would only need to deliver services using > their "solution". > > One other note, business models cannot be copyrighted. Code that > implements a model, can be, but the model itself could only be patented > (although it *shouldn't*). GPL applies to software source code. There > are other licenses to apply to other types of copyrighted works, and > some are working on a "free" patent license, but the GPL is specific. > > There are not, and will not, be restrictions on the ability to profit > from GPL code. The only restriction on profit from GPL code arises from > competition. Since anyone else can distributed the same code, you have > to compete on real issues of service and support to generate competitive > advantage (which translates to profit), rather than competing unfairly > through a copyright monopoly. > > Final analysis, if you want to create proprietary software, don't modify > GPL code to do so. Even if you don't plan to distribute the code > currently, you may want to in the future, and you wouldn't be able to do so. > > One other thing, If you plan to work on software code, be very careful > about repeat implementations. If you write (or closely examine) code > that accomplishes a task, and later write code to accomplish the same > task. If the subsequent code is found to be sufficiently similar, then > the code may be determined to be a "copy" of the original. The courts > tend to flip-flop on this issue, so it's not guaranteed, but it's > definitely possible. That doesn't mean don't work on code, just don't do > the exact same thing on different projects unless you create the code > independently. You can always re-license your own work, if you own the > original copyright, but you cannot relicense work owned by others. there > are a few limited references to this issue on the GNU site, mostly > because employers are getting more and more expansive in their claims to > copyright on employees' work, some even claim all work you ever do, > past, present, future, which becomes pretty nasty if you think about it. > > Disclaimer: > IANAL, you should consult a qualified attorney for legal advice relevant > to your specific circumstances. > > BTW: if you're working for a corporation, you may be able to ask for an > opinion from their corporate counsel without paying a fee, that's what > corporate counsel is for. > > Bryan.ONeal@asu.edu wrote: > > >I sorta asked out of curiosity, however I am a bit worried in that if I have a > >client, who has a client, that is looking to provide a service. My client may > >ask me to research off the shelf solutions or open source projects that will > >require little modification. If such products or projects can not be found > >document what you did and preparer a conceptual model from which my client may > >contract programmers to complete the task for their client. As much as I love > >the GPL I do not want to taint closed projects with open code any more then I > >would want to taint open projects with closed code. And now that I am getting > >into the programming world as a researcher and modeler I find it best to ask > >if there is any issues I should avoided. I certainly do not want to go > >against the intentions of the original creators, even if they never finished > >their creation. And while I believe that as long as I do not try to sell code > >as a product in and of itself, then it is OK. But the selling of services > >that use code gets a bit tricky. Particularly in these dark days of > >copyright. > > > >As much as I would love to ask a lawyer, I simple can not afford to do so. > > > > > >On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 ted@gould.cx wrote: > > > > > > > >>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 Bryan.ONeal@asu.edu wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Just out of curiosity, If I base a commercial project on a GPL project > >>>1) Are their any restrictions on profits generated? > >>>2) If I never sell or otherwise distribute my code do I have to release my > >>>code? > >>> > >>>Example: If I set up a database of education institutions with licensed slides > >>>of famous art, and then charged for membership so these institutions could > >>>distribute their work to each other. And 30% of the code I used came from a > >>>dead source forge project. Or the model (either the business model or the > >>>site/code model) came from a dead open source project. Would I have to > >>>release my code under the GPL? And what does release entail? > >>> > >>>And if I did not use GPL models, but I have been known to read GPL models can > >>>some one who latter finds a similar GPL model sue me (or more importantly my > >>>customers) to open said code under the assumption that I may have seen said > >>>model and inadvertently integrated its concepts into my work? > >>> > >>> > >>Frist, I am not a lawyer, you should probably seek legal council on most > >>of these type of things so that someone can take your specific situation > >>into account. > >> > >>In general, the GPL says that if you distribute a binary of the code, you > >>must also distribute the source. For instance, if I was to change the > >>source code, and then give you a copy of the compiled program, I must make > >>the source available to you. > >> > >>Now, as far as delivering a service using an open source tool -- currently > >>that does not constitute distributing the program. It is rumored this may > >>change in GPL v3. If you modify a GPL Apache module, but never give > >>anyone the binary, you aren't responsible to give them the source. > >> > >>Source code in general is protected by copyright, which protects a > >>specific implementation of an idea. This is similr to the idea of a > >>star-crossed lover. If you wrote a book where the love interests weren't > >>able to get together because of societal issues, you wouldn't owe > >>Shakespere money. This is a very fine line, and one I'd be careful with. > >>I would definitely recommend implementing in another language if possible. > >> > >>In conclution, it probably isn't a good idea to try and do a "proprietary" > >>fork of any open source project. If you add features, and other people > >>add features, then you've got a greater whole than either of you could > >>have created. In very few cases is that your competative advantage, it > >>sounds like, in your case, that your real competative advantage is the > >>data that you're collecting. I'd strongly recommend working on your > >>project in an open fasion. > >> > >> --Ted > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss