[Gllug] [OT] Selling GPL

[Stephen Nelson-Smith]

On Dec 3, 2007 4:05 PM, Jason Clifford <jason at ukfsn.org> wrote:

> IPR? What do you mean by that? Do you mean something other than
> copyright? If so what? If not why not be clear and use the term
> copyright which is clear in itself?

Intellectual Property Rights.  Given that I know almost nothing about
this area of law, but was familiar with the acronymn, I assumed others
would be in the same position.  As to the difference between copyright
and intellectual property, IANAL, but it seems likely there's a
difference.  I may be entirely wrong, and the two terms may be
interchangeable - but copyright didn't occur to me, and intellectual
property did.

> If the product simply aggregates GPL software and the suppliers own
> additions to the mix are not derived from GPL they are free to license
> the whole under any terms so long as it is clear the GPL components are
> licensed under GPL and the recipient's rights made clear to them.

Right - so, for example, a product that ships code that makes use of
debconf, provided it is made clear that debconf is used, and the
license given, the supplier is ok.

> If access to the data is however sold as a
> service and the data remains with the supplier then GPL is irrelevant to
> that part of the discussion. It does not cover delivery of a service in
> that way.

Right - that's clear.
> > Incidentally, this raises a puzzling question in my mind.  In what
> > sense is software ever released or licensed?  If I knock something
> > together on  the train, am I obliged to release its source code right
> > away?
>
> No and why would you be?

I had failed to realise Tet's point about not being obliged to release the code.

> Nothing to do with GPL. You would not be distributing the code. GPL does
> not prevent you running a service using it and charging for that
> service.

I see.  Thanks!

S.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug