Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Duetto Project Continues For Web-Based C++ Support

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Of the restrictions that GPL puts on the code, "only for non-commercial use" is definitely not one of them. So I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    62

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Of the restrictions that GPL puts on the code, "only for non-commercial use" is definitely not one of them. So I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.
    From the FSF website....

    >The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license
    >makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it
    >available only for free programs.

    There's no such thing in practical reality as a commercial free program, hence... GPL libraries and compilers prohibit commercial use.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alcalde View Post
    You license your software as Grade AAA FSF-approved GPL3+++ complete with a little Stallman beard you have to glue onto your installation medium. This makes it so that your code, any code that links to your code, any code that sits in the same partition as your code, and any code that's written by anyone within three miles of your code has to be open source. Contrary to what some Stallmanistas believe, you can't effectively have commercial code that works that way ((almost) no one pays for what they can have for free). Thus, if you actually want to make money off of your software, you need a commercial license.

    More seriously, this is open source. It's called GPL3. LiveCode works this way. PyQT (Python bindings for Qt) work this way. If I use PyQT any code using it (i.e. my actual program) must be open source (effectively non-commercial) as well. Otherwise, I need a commercial license. LiveCode is like this too - you can use it for all the personal or open source stuff you want courtesy of GPL3 but to distribute closed code you're going to need a commercial license.

    Have you seen the demo of Unreal Engine running in the browser? Think of it this way. If Duetto is GPL3, Unreal Engine would have to be open sourced to run in the browser. Since that's not going to happen, they'd need a commercial license.

    In conclusion: GPL3 isn't open source if you believe some of the arguments here. :-) But in reality it does have the same effect people here don't like: it tells you what you have to do with your code, and compels people to buy commercial licenses as a result. That's not bad, but let's recognize it for what it is and does. You can put restrictions on open source, because GPL3 does just that.
    It's good that you mentioned Livecode since there are a few license issues that bother me.
    For starters, it's GPLv3 only, that means that if GPLv4 comes along or if you want to use that code in an AGPL project, tough luck.
    Secondly, they've made it incompatible with other GPLv3 code due to their additional linking exceptions. As such, the 'open source' part of it was effectively a token gesture only, in practice it's pretty closed off to other FOSS code.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alcalde View Post
    >The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license
    >makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it
    >available only for free programs.

    There's no such thing in practical reality as a commercial free program, hence... GPL libraries and compilers prohibit commercial use.
    Yes, there is such a thing. I think you're confusing the term "commercial" with "proprietary."

    Here's an example of a collection of commercial free programs: http://www.redhat.com/products/enterprise-linux

    So if someone is saying "free for non-commercial use", it would mean that it couldn't be included in stuff like RHEL.
    Last edited by RealNC; 07-21-2013 at 05:02 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •