FC4 or FC5

[jdow]

From: "Michael" <mogmios at mlug.missouri.edu>
> 
>> If you use the GPL for the license of your project it means that you
>> can sell the end result, i.e. the binary version, for whatever you want
>> based the market for said project.  The key is that you have to make
>> available to anyone who wants it the source code for this project.  You
>> can charge a nominal fee to cover the cost of delivering the source code
>> (if you press CD's of buy ftp services).  However, as with the Linux
>> distros, you don't have to charge for either the binary or the source if
>> you don't want to.
>>   
> If you wrote the code then the license doesn't apply to you. The license 
> applies to others who use the code. You do not have to make available 
> the code to anyone you don't want to. You can totally sell people the 
> compiled software without source if you wrote the code yourself even if 
> it is under the GPL. It'd be a bit odd to do so and someone would 
> probably wonder what good the GPL does them without source but you could 
> do it. Of course you can give your code freely to everyone but as the 
> original author you are not required to do so.

Sorry - if I purchase a copy of your product and it is GPL licensed I
can ask for the source, expect to receive it, and then start selling
it myself with near zero development overhead. I can also purchase it
once and give it to all my friends, source and all. I can basically
wipe out your business if I've a mind to. It'd all be legal. It might
be unethical as all hell. But it'd be legal.

>> If you actually take lines of source from a GPL licensed project and
>> use that source in the source for your product then you have created a
>> derivative product and therefor must license it as GPL.  If, however,
>> your source code only call GPL'ed libraries (said libraries are LGPL'ed)
>> and/or use make use of external GPL tools and apps in your source you do
>> not have to release your stuff under the GPL.
>>   
> If you take a substantial portion of the source of a GPL licensed code 
> base such that copyright law comes into play then you must make your 
> code also available under the same license if you redistribute the 
> program. If you only take one line from a large code base then it's 
> unlikely to be a substantial part of that code and copyright won't come 
> into play. Usually libraries are under the LGPL but they can be under 
> the GPL and likewise non-libraries can be LGPL. There are different 
> issues with using each license. As with any license you should read it 
> and understand it before agreeing to it. In the case of software using 
> the program or code is agreement.

Have you looked at the KDE license chain lately? Have you looked at
licensing device drivers for Linux lately. Even if you build and
release "glue" code and try to include a proprietary module people
are claiming that the glue code and your proprietary module are
all one project so the proprietary module is now GPLed. They may
still be quibbling over a proprietary driver developed specifically
for one OS and later on a glue module produced for Linux. Many are
saying that if it's the same company doing both then it's "obvious"
that the glue module was all part of that one project hence the
contamination is real.

{^_^}   Joanne