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
(text/plain)