From: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: What the GPL actually means
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:47:15 GMT
	<1993Jan3.213759.18973@husc3.harvard.edu> <C0BEFv.BJr@news.udel.edu>
Reply-To: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Organization: Prifysgol Cymru, Aberystwyth
X-Old-Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF

On 4 Jan 93 05:40:42 GMT, johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) said:

johnston> If you want to use the text of the GNU source verbatim as part
johnston> of the source for your program, yes, you are obligated to
johnston> release all your source under the GPL.

No, this is not required at all. For the mere incorporation of GNU sw
into one's own there are no conditions whatsoever.

The GPL says that the sources of any work of which GPL covered material
is part must be covered by the GPL themselves only if and when those
sources or any derivatives thereof (e.g. binaries) are redistributed to
a third party.

The GPL moreover specifies that only that third party has a right to get
a copy of the sources alongside their binaries, and may then redistribute
copies of those sources further.

Note also that there is *no* condition imposed on the redistribution of
the binaries themselves; these may or may not be covered by the GPL. In
other words, the binaries can be totally proprietary.

If you use GPL covered sources for in-house projects there is *no need*
to release anything. The use of GPL covered sources, when they are not
redistributed to anybody else, is not subject to *any* condition.

What the GPL actually says
==========================

Let me repeat this again, as it apparently virtually nobody understands
these subtleties:

the GPL states the condition that you can give copies of GPL covered
sources, or their binaries, to third parties, all the sources
involved in which they are must be covered by the GPL.

* No conditions apply if you don't give anything to third parties.

* No conditions apply on the binaries.

* Nobody but the third party to which the binaries are given has
  a right to get the sources from you, and then only if they
  actually request them (but they must be informed in writing they
  have this right).

* You can sell the binaries under any conditions you want, for any
  price you deem fit.

* You can impose penalties, like withdrawal of warranty on the
  binaries, if the third party actually demands the sources (but
  the penalties cannot be excessive, like a fine).

* If you distribute the sources alone, you can ask any price for the
  service of supplying them; if you distribute the sources after the
  request of somebody who got your binaries you can only ask for
  reimbursment of expenses incurred.

Examples
========

1) You are a large bank. You use GNU LIB C++ to develop a financial
application that is considered confidential and proprietary to the bank
and no copies are given to other parties.

-> You have no obligations whatsoever under the GPL.

2) You are a software developer. You build a JOVIAL compiler based on the
GNU CC back end. You sell for $10,000 binaries of the compiler carrying
your own copyright. With the binaries you give two years of maintenance
and updates, a written offer to supply the sources of the whole compiler
for reimbursment of the costs involved (media, personnel time,
overheads), and a clause that the binaries must be deleted and the
warranty expires as soon as the offer to get the sources is exercised.

-> The binaries cannot be copied by the customer. If customers ask
   for the sources, they are on their own. They must recompile the
   sources and provide their own maintenance and support. They may
   then redistribute either as they see fit.

3) You are a source repository. You have a compilation of GNU sw.
you are asked for a copy of the compilation.

-> You are under no obligation to supply that copy. If you do, you can
   ask any price for the service of supplying it. Once supplied, the
   same compilation can be redistributed under the GPL without
   restrictions.

Comments
========

As you see in all these cases there is no prohibition against commercial
activity; but you can only make people pay for your services, you cannot
be a source rentier.

1) You can make any use whatsoever of GNU sw, if it is for own use.

2) If you provide poor maintenance and support for JOVIAL compiler, or if
the price of the binaries is exagerated, your customers can demand the
sources and do it themselves; or they can even provide the same services
in competition with you. If you are good at maintenance and support, and
your binary prices are low enough, nobody will have the incentive to do
so. Indeed if somebody asks for the sources, and starts competing with
you, selling binaries they have derived from the sources, you can
compete with them offering your own maintenance and support services.

3) For the effort of assembling and supplying the compilation you can
ask any price you seem fit. If your asking price is too high, somebody
will ask for a copy and set up a more reasonably priced alternative. If
they make a mess out of hit, you can get their customers back.


Some will object that a lot of the incentive to develop a source in the
first instance is precisely the hope of becoming a 'source rentier',
like Wozniak or Allen. Too bad. Stallman (and friends) do not like them.
If you want to take advantage of his (their) work, you have to agree to
their tastes.

Basically Stallman thinks that work should be rewarded, not absentee
landlordship. Maybe he is not really a socialist, he has the same
attitude towards 'source rentiers' that medieval theologicians had about
usury ('unearned income').
--
Piercarlo Grandi, Dept of CS, PC/UW@Aberystwyth <pcg@aber.ac.uk>
  E l'italiano cantava, cantava. E le sue disperate invocazioni giunsero
  alle orecchie del suo divino protettore, il dio della barzelletta