#19986 - Sweex - Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:57 am
I've been reading a lot about the subject on www.gnu.org, but things still stay unclear to me. I hope that someone here has some answers to my questions.
The following is the case. I've written a (somewhat) smart tool that converts and packes contents of a given directory into one file. I have written this for win32 (it's a console app). I want to put this on the internet so people will be able to use it.
- Do I need to use the GPL if I only release a binary?
- If I release the source (which makes it possible to build ie. a linux version), do I really need to include the license text in every source and header file?
- If I include a (win32) binary, must this then be built with a legal version of the compiler? I've got one at work (obviously) but will I legally be able to use this to release my personal tool?
Many thanks in advance!
_________________
If everything fails, read the manual: If even that fails, post on forum!
#19987 - NoMis - Thu Apr 29, 2004 11:04 am
Are you using other libs that are under the gnu gpl ??
If not your free to put your programm on the internet in every way you like. If you want to use the gpl for your programm you must release the source code too!
If you are using something which is under gpl and plan to copy, modify or distribute it along with your application your application have to be under the gpl too. Otherwise your free to use gpl programms in any way you want whether your application is under GPL license or not.
I don't know the whole gpl either so someone please correct me if im wrong.
NoMis
#19989 - Sweex - Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:09 pm
Not using anything that's under GNU GPL.
Because it's a win32 application only, I was thinking to release the source as well so someone else can build it for other platforms (and perhaps improve it).
Best thing todo then is make seperate packages. One containing the compiled application, and another with the full source under GPL. If I include a textfile with the "compiled application" package indicating the fact that the source is available under GNU public license that should do it, right?
_________________
If everything fails, read the manual: If even that fails, post on forum!
#19991 - NoMis - Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:26 pm
That should do it.
Rembember if you releasing you application under gpl that everyone has the right to see, change and redistribute your code. The same things i explained in my post befor applys to them if they do.
NoMis
#19996 - Sweex - Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:43 pm
Thanks NoMis... it's a bit clearer to me now.
That tool is not the only thing I'm ever gonna release, so that's why I wanted to inform myself about GNU. I like the concept of free software, and if I've got something nice I'll release it under gnu.
_________________
If everything fails, read the manual: If even that fails, post on forum!
#20004 - sajiimori - Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:08 pm
If you want it to be *really* free, you can just call it public domain. Use GPL if you want to force others to contribute their modifications back to the community, and prevent them from using your code in closed-source projects.
#20008 - crossraleigh - Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:45 pm
Bear in mind that the so called "public domain" software has a copyright owner, who can take it off the "public domain" at any time. The public domain, by its traditional definition, is where works go when their copyright has expired. You can't just call something public domain. See http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6225.
If you want to give your work away with no restrictions, try the MIT license or similar. I personally like the zlib/libpng license. Both of these licenses are compact ? the size of the canonical GPL copyright notice ? so they can easily be included at the head of each file.