Quote:
Originally Posted by j.p.s
I guess trickiness comes from what incorporating GPL software into a paid product means.
In the old days interpreted languages were rare and source code was compiled into binary executables and sellers had to distribute those binaries to users. The GPL was created to
require that users have access to the source code. No restriction was placed on commercial use as long as the source code was available. GPL authors that want compensation for commerical use distribute their software with a dual licence. It might be that calibre requires a separate license but I didn't find anything like that on the home page. wikipedia says GPL v3-only.
If commercial SW vendors use GPL code inside their proprietary code and do not make the source available for both, they are in vilolation of the GPL. But if the secret code is kept separate from the GPL code, the proprietary code does not need to be revealed and normal copyright protection applies to the proprietary executables.
Over time, software libraries complicated things and GPL places restrictions on proprietary code that links to libraries of GPL code. There are multiple license variations that allow authors to make various distinctions. I lack interest in these distinctions and do not try to keep tham straight because they have no application to anything that I do.
GPL does not limit the use of GPL software to perform a paid service.
The modern pickle is whether running GPL software on a web site constitutes distributing that software. I'm fuzzy on that, but it seems to me that it does not.
Maybe calibre licensing or GPL v3 forbid using calibre on the back end, but I don't think so.
|
Dunno, but I do recall some kerfuffle over that one company, the one that we all don't mention, that uses C as its entire backend and charges for it. But that's all that's rummaging around inside my brain.
Hitch