in reply to Using GPL'd Perl Modules in Commercial Software

Just a quick moan:

it seems that selling code that uses GPL'd modules is justifiable because you are doing just that, selling the code that uses the modules, not selling the modules themselves.

There's nothing wrong with selling GPL'd modules: the GPL does not state that you have to give software away for no cost, only that you must make the source code reasonably available.

The other nit, why are you worrying about having to supply a copy of the GPL? You can't inform a user of their rights without giving them the licence: this isn't GPL specific; the same applies with any other licence.

  • Comment on Re: Using GPL'd Perl Modules in Commercial Software

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Using GPL'd Perl Modules in Commercial Software
by cjf (Parson) on Feb 17, 2002 at 19:40 UTC
    There's nothing wrong with selling GPL'd modules: the GPL does not state that you have to give software away for no cost, only that you must make the source code reasonably available.

    According to the Faqs (Thanks to IlyaM for the link :)...

    Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (20k characters) (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.

    I was under the impression that the GPL specified you could only charge a "reasonable rate" for distributing the software. I was obviously wrong about this and your first statement is correct.

    The other nit, why are you worrying about having to supply a copy of the GPL? You can't inform a user of their rights without giving them the licence: this isn't GPL specific; the same applies with any other licence.

    I don't think I fully understand what you're saying here. Surely you're not claiming that I shouldn't supply a copy of the license because if they do not know their rights, they can't use them?

[reply]

      The other nit, why are you worrying about having to supply a copy of the GPL? You can't inform a user of their rights without giving them the licence: this isn't GPL specific; the same applies with any other licence.

      I don't think I fully understand what you're saying here. Surely you're not claiming that I shouldn't supply a copy of the license because if they do not know their rights, they can't use them?

      No, I'm not saying that at all!! My point was, whenever you distribute software, you always need to tell people what rights they have, and distribute the licence with it. This isn't a problem of the GPL: the requirement of the GPL (and all other licences!) is that you inform the user of the agreement they're making before they use the software.

[reply]
        Sorry about the misunderstanding :)

        You're quite correct about distributing the license. What I am wondering is how many people actually mention the GPL and what components it applies to in the software they are selling. Failure to do so would be a violation of the GPL, correct?

[reply]

In Section Meditations