Closed Source On Linux and BSD? 526
An anonymous reader writes "I want to start (very small) software/hardware business. The code in question will be closed source. I won't modify or use any GPL code or any 3rd-party sources. It will be my own handwritten C/C++ code from start to finish. I am planning to sell embedded-like boxes with an OS (Linux or BSD) and this code. I am more familiar with Linux but I am scared a little bit of Linux licensing, and also of Linux fanboy-ism: I personally got a 'go to hell with your @#$ closed code' slur on Slashdot. I am not a GPL guru and not a software freedom fighter. I just want to do my job and make a living." Read on for this reader's five particular questions.
My questions:
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
Answers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Answers (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmmm, maybe you could compile it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Answers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Answers (Score:5, Informative)
More clear answer: No.
Even if you publish proprietary code linked to GPL code and swear you are aware of the violation, nobody can force you to disclose your code. It's a copyright violation, and forcing to publish code is not a remedy for copyright violation. In that hypothetical case the most a court would probably do is force you to stop distributing, and perhaps if it's that obvious you knew you were in violation it could order some punitive damages.
Even so, (Score:5, Insightful)
A2b. GNU/Linux (the whole system) comes with many libraries, some of them BSD-licensed, some GPL-licensed, some GPL-with-linking-exception-licensed, some LGPL-licensed, etc... it's a common interpretation of the GPL that if you link to a GPL-(no-linking-exception) library (like GNU readline or Qt) you are making a derivative work and thus, you have to license your work under the GPL.
and I mean this respectfully: as you will be selling your box as an embedded utility, what do you have to lose by GPL'ing (or otherwise opening) your code? If you do things right, you will have:
I. a community of people that are willing to buy your box to start;
II. a community will want to tinker and make your product better, fast, and you get to incorporate the changes for the next versions of your product;
III. the respect of a lot of people.
Example: lots of people I know have Linksys (WRT54G[L]) wireless routers _because_ they know they can tinker with it, that there are lots of new, interesting uses to it with the alternate verstions of the software, etc. I, myself, when installing SoHo wi-fi networks _only_ recommend WRTs to my clients, as opposed to non-tinkerable D-LINKs that here in Brasil cost 30-40% less.
Re:Even so, (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, guess what (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uh, guess what (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Even so, (Score:4, Insightful)
If his product becomes popular, it's likely to get cloned either by a larger company selling a commercial version, or by a group of enthusiasts making a free version. Either way, he has no control over the situation and the clones will ultimately take over because they have more developers and in the case of the commercial company, greater marketting clout.
If it fails to become popular, he will eventually tire of maintaining it for little/no profit, and it will die off... The few customers he does have, will be screwed.
If he opens it, and it fails to become popular he's no worse off than if he left it closed. However, the few customers he does get are better off, because when he gets tired of pushing an unsuccessful product and gives up, they still have the code and can maintain it in their little niche.
If he opens it and it becomes popular, he will attract more developers who will help improve the code. He is still in a good position to provide support, and bundled ready to go versions. Especially if the software is tied to a piece of hardware he produces, as people will buy the hardware to hack on it.
Even if his software is available for free, many companies and end users will buy a commercially supported version instead of the free version anyway. Conversely, an increasing number of businesses will not buy a product that is tied to a single supplier, because of the risks of losing support if that supplier disappears.
Re:Even so, (Score:5, Informative)
> If his product becomes popular, it's likely to get cloned either by a larger company selling a commercial version, or by a group of
> enthusiasts making a free version. Either way, he has no control over the situation and the clones will ultimately take over
> because they have more developers and in the case of the commercial company, greater marketting clout.
Come on - it's quite possible to make a popular product and derive a quite nice income from it, without attracting the attention of cloners and large companies.
Big Co are only interested if they're going to make mega millions out of it - if you're making a few hundred thousand a year, you won't even show up on their radar. There's an awful lot of software out there that falls into that category.
If you're selling to a tight niche of customers, then only people in and around that niche are likely to even be aware that your product exists, never mind want to clone it themselves. If you're building software for e.g. dentists, while a few dentists may want to add new shiny features to your product, it's highly likely that they'd want YOU to do it for them, rather than track down some software developer, pay him to clone your software and add their desired features to it. Conversely, while a random software developer might come across your software and think he can clone & extend it, he then also has to create a means of distributing his software (no, dentists won't downloaded their critical software from SourceForge), building relationships with an existing base of dentists, then providing support to those dentists (with all the associated issues of dealing with non-IT literate users).
I've got a mate who runs a garbage collection business. Many years ago, he paid a student to create software to allow him to manage his business - sort of a highly-customised piece of accounting software. He still uses that software, still engages that ex-student (now working in IT) to support & extend it, and is extremely happy with it. Shock, horror - it runs on MS Access. He's very happy with the software, and the guy who wrote it has both made a nice side income from it and sold it to a bunch of other garbos - I wouldn't be surprised if he's collectively made a tidy sum from it over a period of several years. Nobody's gonna clone this software, and no big company's gonna be interested in it either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For all you know he's a rocket scientist or brain surgeon who's bored and wants to get into something interesting, like programming
.... were you born knowing how to use dlopen() et all? Or was there some time when YOU were a beginning program
So tell me
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hardware gives you a leg up, though in that case.. (Score:5, Insightful)
>tinker with it, that there are lots of new, interesting uses to it with the alternate verstions of the software, etc.
I'm not in the software industry, and I don't know much about GPL.
But I do know that if my sole
In your Linksys example, there is a hardware component that is not easy to replicate - there is a barrier to duplication. So in that case it is a great benefit to create and sell the hardware, but leave the software open so that the world can improve the functionality and attractiveness of the hardware you are selling.
But I don't understand how this works with a pure software product. If you give it away to the world, then someone else is just going to take the code and make a derivative product from it that does the same thing but is free. The way I see it, the only thing authors of free software can sell is support.
I guess I just still don't understand the free software movement as a business.
Re:Hardware gives you a leg up, though in that cas (Score:3, Insightful)
But I do know that if my sole
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think that really depends on the product and target audience. IE most software projects probably never get noticed on a big enough scale to wory about posting your code to sourceforge, etc. Esentually it would be free advertising for your product, ie the people who find it their would never have otherwise found it and been customers, but some will contribute to a paypal link, som
Re:Hardware gives you a leg up, though in that cas (Score:5, Insightful)
A one man closed source project that involves no particular genius is also susceptible to being duplicated since it won't be all that much effort for someone else to write the same thing from scratch.
So he either is filling a niche where no one else is likely to go (in which case, it doesn't really matter if he uses a closed or open source approach), or it's actually not pure software - perhaps a pre-packaged OS plus hardware plus support for an appliance type system. In which case, given the resources he has to hand, it still wouldn't really make any difference whether he goes closed or open source.
Re:Hardware gives you a leg up, though in that cas (Score:5, Informative)
In an embedded system dynamic linking can eat up scarce resources. Static linking is faster to load, faster to run, and takes up less ram.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
99.9% of the computer using population probably can't do it, or doesn't want to. My point is, they are selling the widget, and the software basically goes along for free. They don't have to worry about people tinkering with the software, from a profit/loss perspective, because they still get to sell the widgets, which are hard enough to replicate that most people would rather just buy one.
>Yes, a competitor could undercut you by giving away a der
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Open the code or stop selling your one single product" isn't a way to force you to open the code?
Re:Answers (Score:5, Informative)
LGPL does not allow you to statically link the code. One of the terms of the LGPL requires that it be possible to make modifications to the LGPL'd code and incorporate these into the distributed program. This cannot be done with a statically linked executable (unless you're also distributing linkable object files).
Re:Answers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Answers (Score:5, Insightful)
With an added caveat; you can statically link the code with an LGPL library, but _you have to provide the option for the recepient to dynamically link should they so desire_. Include an unsupported dynamically linked binary, or perhaps better, object files so the recepient can relink statically against another version (again, you dont have to support that, just provide the option).
This is so that if the libraries are changed and upgraded, security bugs fixed, etc, the user isnt stuck having to use that particular statically linked version.
"'Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?' You can do whatever you want with BSD code"
As long as it's only BSD code, of course. Depending on the definition of 'BSD-based boxes', they can perfectly well include GPL, LGPL, or code under any other license. Anything you link against or in any other way include you have to check for licenses, wether it's Free, free or proprietary software.
And of course, no matter how careful you are with licenses, you can get legally nuked when the USPTO with its usual competence level grants a patent on "putting obfuscated code linked with free software on an embedded device" (or whatever your device is supposed to do).
You may just want to do your job and make a living, but those the 'freedom fighters' are trying to protect you from have no interest in your wishes. They want your money if you're lucky. Or they want you off the market if you're not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as 'intellectual property' remain implemented as legalized monopoly rights, for a private entrepreneur there really is no hi
Re:1,2,3,4,5..6th Q & A (Score:2)
Obfuscated != source (Score:4, Informative)
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
It doesn't seem that this guy needs to release his code in any event, however.
Re:Answers (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Answers (Score:5, Funny)
See?
Linebreak!
It's magic.
LGPLv3 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
still, 4d1 is ugly and seems to imply static linking is still not allowed by the LGPL (contrary to thread starter)...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
</Just playing>
Re:Ok thanks... (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, development of new versions are done on Linux and then ported to other platforms. Here is a good starting page if you are interested in seeing how and what s done by Oracle on Linux, both closed and open source: http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/linux/index
Legal advice (Score:5, Funny)
(Pre-Slashdot conversation ...)
"Hi, this is Bob from Smith, Smith and Wendell returning your call. I'm afraid we're not interested in advising you on matters of software licensing and distribution, but have you considered asking a few hundred thousand opinionated geeks in a public forum? Because that's what we advise most of our potential clients to try first. Here, let me get the URL for you ..."
Research here, advice there (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot is a forum for legal research, not legal advice. So is Groklaw. The point is to get the legal research out of the way so that you don't have to pay an attorney to pay his paralegals to do it. Then you show the research to the attorney, and checking the references that Slashdotters provided goes faster than doing the research from square one, saving the project money.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well that's the nature of the law, every time someone asks me a legal question it starts up a little dialogue in my head; "Well I think the law says this. But what if the other side argues that other thing. And could there be a statutory claim there? Wait, that one issue is federal, could they remove the case to federal court? Damn, this guy is expecting an answer. Well I guess I can say may
Sounds OK to me (Score:4, Informative)
OK but if you want to sell software you need to understand licensing.
Yes, glibc is licensed under the LGPL which is compatible with non-free software.
I suppose so, but unless you are some kind of algorithm genius (and I don't think you are) it is not really going to be worth anybody's while to do reverse engineer it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, glibc is licensed under the LGPL which is compatible with non-free software.
You cannot freely statically link non-free code to LGPL code. See section 6:
Actually, won't help anyway (Score:2)
- The adresses are the same whether you randomized the variables and method names or not.
- The machine-code instructions... well, an optimizing compiler already does a decent job of jumling that, _if_ you compile with optimizations on. And most simple obfuscation techniques tend to not make a huge difference there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Go for it (Score:4, Insightful)
In Response to Your Questions (Score:2, Informative)
DP
Re: (Score:2)
Using the OS says nothing about the software you further need to provide a working system. My advice: hire a lawyer who does understand the various licenses.
Answers (Score:5, Informative)
2. Yes if they are LGPL. Which includes the standard C++ libraries. Some components such as the kernel also have certain binary waivers.
3. Yes but why bother if you're not releasing the source. And if you are releasing the source, then there are benefits to not obfuscating it (e.g. helpful customers fixing your bugs).
4. Not unless a court says. Obviously if you violate the GPL you are taking a major risk of somebody finding out and forcing your code out into the open.
5. Yes, but neither will you have a problem with Linux. However you would have to supply the sources to the GPL / LGPL components of your system upon demand. Most people stick the source up on a web site or link to where they found it, but the latter may not absolve you of not providing it if somebody comes asking for it. Also BSD systems can contain GPL software too (e.g. if you use gcc as your compiler for the C++)
I think if you're in doubt you should probably go look at some existing Linux dist designed for embedded systems. They're bound to have a FAQ that covers most of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that's irrelevant. Using GCC to compile a binary doesn't automatically force the GPL on your code. No one would use it if that were the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Answers (Score:5, Informative)
No if they are LGPL. LGPL requires you to be able to update the LGPL'd license, which effectively means it must either be dynamically linked, or you must distribute your
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
Not unless a court says. Obviously if you violate the GPL you are taking a major risk of somebody finding out and forcing your code out into the open.
This isn't an expected outcome. Nobody can force you to release your source, even if you violate the GPL. Of course you can be forced to pay compensation to the GPL developers whose IP rights you have violated, and they may be prepared to negotiate if you choose to release your source.
Good answers here (Score:2)
Basically, making non-free software for Linux really isn't a big deal - at least, no more so than making non-free software for any other OS. Check the licence terms on the libraries that you make use of, and use dynamic linking to avoid having to build LGPL'ed code into your program. This is exactly what you would do if you were making non-free software for Windows or Mac.
GPLv3 does not affect this advice, because even if GPLv3 is incompatible with your requirements in some way, you
Well... (Score:2)
Except for linking to GNU libraries, of which I know very little anyway since I'm no programmer (yet), from what I know, your problems do not exist.
Namely, you can run proprietary code on Linux. For instance, nVidia and ATI provide proprietary kernel drivers (though with something like that may be problems in GPL 3; however Linux will in all probability remain GPL 2). Adobe provides it Acrobat Reader for Linux and so on and so forth. No problem there.
As long as you do not use any code under a GPL license,
Some answers (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Even if you decide to post on slashdot, at least try to read the licenses in question before plus the many articles on the subject that are readily available online.
3. If you want to have good and honest answers, avoid the word fanboy in your original post. Starting off by insulting the very people whose help you ask for isn't a very good idea.
Re:Some answers (Score:4, Insightful)
He probably will ask a lawyer, but that doesn't minimize the value of asking on Slashdot. One of the concerns the guy had was about the Linux fanboy community, and the rich community of
If you've ever prepared to start a major project, you know that sometimes getting advice from a wide range of sources is valuable. Personally, I've gotten some extraordinarily valuable information here on Slashdot that's directly helped me with my own projects. There was a recent article about video codecs that was a huge help to me.
I've seen a few of these scoldings around here lately, this notion that you should do research online before you do research online. One of the reasons you ask a question on Slashdot is because you're not an expert in that particular subject and you're looking for opinion.
Plus, reading TFA is against the Slashdot EULA.
"Fanboy" is an insult? I actually think it's a highly descriptive and precise term. Anyway, he wasn't referring to Slashdot readers as fanboys, he was describing a subset that would rip somebody for trying to make a living by making a product and not giving it away. If the shoe fits...
I hate the very idea of IP, but not everyone can live out here where the air is thin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Open source is a sort of lead-by-example system. You put your code out there for everyone to see
Closed code (Score:5, Insightful)
The license for the Linux kernel is not going to change (It requires the consent of many hundreds of contributors, many of which will decline. Some are dead, others are unreachable.)
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
You can statically link, but why avoid dynamic linking? glibc and libstd++ are LGPL, which permits binary only distribution.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
Isn't compiling it enough? You can strip the compiled code or debugging symbols if you really want, but you only hurt your own ability to debug your users problems.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
Not if you avoid linking with code which has a license that require it.
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
Linux and the various BSD flavours both allow this sort of use. See the various wifi-routers and tivo style devices. Hell even my digital picture frames run linux.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not of statically linked code. See section 6, which requires that enough materials be given (or offered) to the user to make a version of the program that uses a modified copy of the library.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose obfuscation serves a purpose if it is about handling license keys. You don't want to make it too easy for a cracker to overwrite a single subroutine call to check_license() with NOP instructions. But it is rather unclear what he's thinking of with the term 'obfuscate'.
Have you asked PJ? (Score:2, Funny)
Some answers (Score:2)
> will be closed source. I won't modify or use any GPL code or any 3rd-party sources.
Maybe not in your own code, but if you distribute linux boxes, you are using GPL code.
> It will be my own handwritten C/C++ code from start to finish. I am planning to sell
> embedded-like boxes with an OS (Linux or BSD) and this code.
This is possible. TiVO do something like it.
> I am more familiar with Linux but I am scared a litt
Re: (Score:2)
That's not completely true iirc. Only if you add some for of DRM or tamper resistance to the system you might get into trouble with GPLv3. But in that case you will get stuck with the GPLv2 versions of the software.
Re: (Score:2)
"One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called "appliances") contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise."
From http://gplv3.fsf [fsf.org]
Tentative answer (Score:4, Informative)
Yes.
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
AFAIK, no. Static linking is incorporating code directly. If you link dynamically then any library that is LGPL (not GPL) is fine, but for static linking I believe you need to have an open license on your own code as well.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
It's your code - do anything you want. If you're not open-sourcing it, just don't ship the source.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
No. Again, when people have been found to have violated the terms of the license, they've had to stop selling and distributing the stuff. I can imagine cases where someone may have to retroactively pay for the illegal use of code. But I can't see a situation where'd you actually had to open your code.
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
Well, 1, 3 and 4 isn't a problem under Linux either. 2 - for BSD-licensed libraries you could link statically. But a lot of libs (user-interface stuff and higher-level libs) in BSD systems are LGPL as well - everything in a BSD-based system isn't BSD-licensed.
not to disparage, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Your code will be closed source? Fine, I don't have much of a care about such, dig out, I plan to do a game, and that will be closed source at first. But your planned software will run on linux, and that gives rise to the problem.
Just say your project proves popular. Well in that case the chances are very high that you will find yourself in competition with an open source equivalent, either existing or created specifically because your software revealed a new need.
You need to look closely at the closed source rationale. It can work, but not everywhere. You could be beaten to a pulp by a small group of co-operating people out to do better then you. There have been some successes with closed software on embedded systems, but those have been heavily invested in, with lots of developers.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of a similar problem that he is going to face.
Closed source software development has a serious drawback. It's very expensive to manage and develop. I'm working on a project today that I don't feel is worth releasing for others to see -- making it effectively closed source.
As a result, development is slow and difficult because every bug I run into is entirely mine to solve.
All the code changes are done on my time. No one else is spending time on anything: documentation, testing, user int
Hmm (Score:3, Informative)
To be perfectly honest, I have to question whether it's wise to enter a market where a) you don't have familiarity with the platform (there are long established answers to most of these questions) and b) don't know anybody you could ask. Having said that...
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
Today, yes, provided you comply with the terms of the license. Tomorrow, it depends on exactly what you are doing.
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries?
That contradicts your earlier claim that you "won't modify or use any GPL code or any 3rd-party sources". The term "Linux libraries" is meaningless. What libraries are we talking about? By statically linking a library, you make your application a derivative work and you are also distributing the library itself, which means you need to make sure that the library's license allows this and that you comply with its terms.
(My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
Your own experience is probably wrong.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
So long as it's entirely your code, although I don't see the point. Of course, if the reason you are obfuscating the code is because it's a derivative work and you are required to provide the source, then no, you probably can't.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
At worst, if you infringe on somebody's copyrights, then you could be offered this as an alternative to being sued.
See, this is the kind of question that makes me think you don't even have the remotest familiarity with Linux. You seriously think somebody can just shake you down for source? Huh? Or are you just spreading FUD?
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
Ah, that answers my question. Fuck off. You aren't genuinely asking these questions, you're just a BSD troll spreading FUD.
I'll give it a shot (Score:2)
2. NVidia does it, why not you?
3. I'm not sure what this means. If you're using C++ then you're already giving out machine code basically, but anyt
Just use BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not opposed to proprietary software. Quite the contrary. But I do find the notion of taking an open source project, slapping on a bit of code, and trying to keep your part to yourself, to be extremely offensive. The people who contributed to GNU software did so with the expectation that their code is share and share alike. What you've described appears to run directly counter to that, completely disrespecting the wishes of the programmers involved. Unless I'm reading you wrong, you deserve a hearty "go to hell!".
BSD, on the other hand, is meant to allow for use exactly like you are proposing. Have at it. No hard feelings there as that's exactly in line with their programmers' wishes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In some way, yes, they did expect 'share and share alike'. But not entirely. Linux kernel developers explicitly allow you to do whatever you want in userspace; they don't expect anything from you if you use their kernel and 'slap' a proprietary
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose you could still be opposed to closed-source software in principle, but you're not - what you seem to be doing (intentionally or not, I can't tell) is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First, BSD has some limitations (like carry notice and not misrepresent its origin).
Second, one must separate BSD licensed software from BSD based OSes. To my knowledge, all modern BSDs extensively use GNU software to create binaries, libgcc among others.
Third, one can link to GPL, LGPL code, as long as it is for own use (not redistributed).
Fourth, hardly any libraries come as GPL. Nearly all come with LGPL. Moreover, (L)GPL is a bit defanged if it comes with the distro. But static linking is still an issue
GNU/Linux ideology conflict (Score:2, Troll)
Make no mistake about it, while using the GNU
Yes, of course you can (Score:2)
This is precisely how proprietary apps work on Linux (examples: Matlab, Oracle, etc. etc.). In fact you can even use a GUI, assuming you pick GNOME/GTK+ (not KDE/Qt).
So, basically you have no problems
Why you will fail: (Score:2)
Answers (Score:2)
Without knowing exactly what libraries you're planning to link against, and what DRM "features" you plan this embedded device to have, the answers really can't be any better than that. With regards to static linking, if you can dynamically link to the library then you can statically link. I'm not aware of any software license that makes a distinction.
Take, take, take? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people would call that selfish.
Here is my advice: talk to a lawyer who is knowledgeable on licensing and IP matters.
Some answers (Score:2)
Yes, no problem
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
Although myth has it that the GPL makes a difference between static and dynamic linking, the opinion of the FSF seems to be that to be derivative code, simply means that the code is dependent on the presence of the library. If it is, it is derivative. If not, it's not. So, take for instance SWI-Prolog. Th
Answers (Score:2)
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
The GPL requires you to give the same freedoms to your customers as you yourself receive in any code that is a derived work of the GPL. If you are not planning on modifying Linux, then all you need to do is make a copy of the source code available to your customers. Note that saying 'get it from kernel.org' has been shown not to be a valid work-around for this; you will need to keep a copy of the source code that you distribute for the unlikely event that the upstream source stops distributing it.
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
I don'
Nobody can force you to open your code (Score:2)
If you happen to include GPL-code in your closed source software you may get sued, you may be forced to remove your product from the market until you have removed all GPL-code from it, and you may be forced to pay compensation. But you are still the copyright holder, and nobody has any claim to your code other than you.
The only way I can see you could be forced to open your code, is if your company don't have the means to pay compensation and don't have the financ
NetBSD (Score:2)
If you use BSD (the base, and not the GPL ports stuff) you're 100% completely free to do whatever you want with the code for kernel and operating system, to your heart's content, without ever worrying about a thing.
NetBSD [wikipedia.org] is BSD licensed (of course), and runs on such an incredibly wide variety of
the basics are: (Score:2)
But I get the feeling that this is too simple and you might have wanted to know something different. Please comment.
What type of embedded system? (Score:2)
It sounds like you are planning to use an embedded version of Linux that does not support dynamic linking well, e.g. uClinux on some MMU-less CPUs. That suggests you will be using non-mainstream libraries such as uClibc which might have special licencing requirements, particularly if statically linked. Yo
You can if you want to... (Score:2)
You certainly can with GPL2. Many people are doing just that.
Don't static link (for distribution) with GPL or LGPL code unless you are willing to use a Free license for your code. Not that static linking is a particularly good idea if you've got the system locked down properly (wastes space).
Don't statically link libraries (Score:4, Informative)
Ignore the rude fanboys (Score:2)
If I catch you including my GPL code in your app (Score:2)
Hope that answers your question.
Don't get all worked up abou
There may not be any stupid questions, but... (Score:2)
the point of the GPL is to set up a community wherein source code is treated as chess pieces. Everything sits in plain view. You're asking to change a fundamental assertion about how the community functions. You want a face-down playing card on the board to represent one of your pieces, in your variation.
No one gets enthusiastic about having their basic assertions tweaked. The reaction is going to range from silence to rage.
Admired from a dista
wow, talk about a flamebait list of questions (Score:2)
Basically mr. anonymous coward "businessman", if you don't like the license, don't use it.
So hard to make an application on Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Answers (Score:3, Informative)
The view from between the lines is somewhat less rosy. Your questions (2) and (3) suggest that you don't know very much about programming, and the fact that you want to keep your Source Code closed at all suggests that whatever you're doing isn't actually going to be all that special. So, be warned: some third party is most probably going to come along and blow you out of the water, offering a superior and True Open Source solution to whatever problem you are trying to solve. In fact, if and when they do just that, they can probably expect a hefty wodge of donations from Slashdot readers eager to see a closed-source product fail spectacularly.
Future considerations (Score:3, Informative)
However, have you considered future possibilities where you may have to tinker with L/GPL code. For example if you discover a bug in a GPL/LGPL library or in the kernel and need to fix it for your purposes. Do you think releasing the fix would pose a problem for you?
If the answer is that you think releasing the fix is against your best interest, you should go the BSD route. Otherwise, L/GPL is probably fine.
Not using other people's code? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, you'll want to use other people's code for some things. You'll almost certainly want to start your program using some shell scripts, but those don't have a non-source form and are generally not worth obfuscating. If you want to use more libraries, you'll have to look at their licenses (many important Linux libraries are BSD-licensed anyway, though). If you're writing kernel code, you probably want to open-source this part and do as little of the interesting stuff there as possible (for technical reasons: kernel bugs cause a lot more damage than userspace bugs; for maintence reasons: kernel developers will maintain cleanly-written open-source code for you across trivial API changes; and for legal reasons: it's a pain to avoid making your module a derivative work of the kernel).
The ideal thing is to build a little computer running Linux with nothing in it that you wrote, and then use it to run a program that's entirely yours, and sell the whole thing to people.
More answers (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
That's what you get for using Windows.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
Not if you're GPL, but you don't show any signs of wanting to.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
No. At most you could be forced to stop distribution and pay copyright damages. And that's only if you violate the GPL or similar license. (I.e., write your own code and you're safe.)
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
What problems?
a) None of the questions that you have raised appear to me to be a problem.
b) The base of the OS is almost irrelevant to every question that you have posed.
The real answers... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, yes, if you distribute a linux kernel that you downloaded from "xyzzyplugh.com" you can direct people to "xyzzyplugh.com" for sources. But if "xyzzyplugh.com" goes out of business, you still need to be able to provide the sources.
The same is true if you use a BSD kernel, but include the GPL application "spork" embedded in the device. You need to be able to provide the sources to "spork" regardless of where you obtained the "spork" binary and regardless of whether the "spork" sources are available elsewhere.
No. If you statically link the Linux libraries, or any GPL licensed library, then you are obligated to license your application under the GPL. If you statically link a LGPL licensed binary, your application can remain closed source. However you must make source for the LGPL licensed library available, again for at least 3 years longer than you distribute the application. Source or object code? In either case the answer is "of course" for all licenses. But if you are under GPL or LGPL, you need to make the means to decrypt it available to anyone who wants it. No, but you could be required to cease distribution and potentially be penalized in either civil or criminal court for any copyright violations you commit. This could apply regardless of the licence of the OS kernel you use. Be sure to understand the license of any software or libraries that you distribute.I second that! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not quite the full story. Binary kernel modules live in a grey area already. They get away with distributing them separately, because it is the end user who links the shim to the binary module, and under the GPL the end user is free to do what they like if they do not distribute the results. Once you start shipping a distribution with those modules enabled by default, you are breaking the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
>> 5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based
>> boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
>What are BSD boxes?
A Computer running BSD. Genius.
Re: (Score:2)
>>> boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
>> What are BSD boxes?
> A Computer running BSD. Genius.
And does it changes anything in terms of GPL? I mean the posterd doesn't even know what he is asking for. He is not asking about linking with some specific libary (then go check it's license). He is basically asking if on BSD boxes different license goes for the same things? If you wish to use some GPL library it is GPL
Re: (Score:2)
Open source is given away freely, and if you believe in that freedom, you also believe in others having the freedom to choose differently. I am myself in favour of open source and would definitely be willing to give my software to the community, but there can be many valid reasons why one would have to produce closed source. Eg. if you do a project for a customer who doesn't want the source for his program to be published.
We shouldn't be religious about this - religion, by and large, has alwa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This assumes two things:
1) The complete package is worth more than the code.
2) You don't sell it exclusively to potential competitors.
In these cas
Re:Why closed? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't care about the GPL, don't use GPL'd software. Simple.
The only reason we are having this discussion is because GNU/Linux has become so succesfull BECAUSE no-one has been able to hijack it and close it.
Understand now?
It's not about zealotry, it's about denying greedy, selfish people the ability to build on the shoulders of others without giving anything back.