Making a personal profit

Quote from: steph at Dec 18, 2006, 09:50 AM

Are you saying that if I modify the modx code I must use the GPL if I choose to distribute the changes under the name of modx, but if I rename the software I can distribute it closed source with a commercial license?

No, it should remain a GPL-licensed piece of software.

Quote from: steph at Dec 17, 2006, 05:34 PM

- If I write snippets as part of developing a site for a client, either of us can sell the snippets. We don’t have to distribute them on GPL because they only call the modx API and don’t change any modx code.

I’m not sure about this.
If you write software that _links_ to a GPL’d library, and distribute it, then your software must be GPL’d.

Consider the Qt libraries. They are GPL’d (in their open source version) and then all the software written using Qt MUST be GPL’d. This is the way Trolltech makes money: if you want to write commercial software based on Qt, then you MUST buy their commercial license.

In contrast, the LGPL license allows applications which make use of an LGPL’d library to be released under any license (even a commercial, closed-source one). This is the case, for example, of wxWidgets or GTK+.

Now, what I said applies clearly to C/C++ programming, where you compile and link your program and the library at once. I’m not sure if this applies also to MODx; the difference is that a snippet could be seen as a software run by a "virtual machine", i.e. the MODx parser, and in that case *maybe* the aforementioned GPL clause *may* not apply...

The only virtual machines involved here are Apache, PHP, the client browser Javascript engine, etc.

The compile and link verbiage and PHP itself is the key here, as I do not believe the MODx parser processing your code is considered compiling and linking. If that’s true, that there is no compilation/linking involved with the MODx core code, code constituting a MODx add-on (or with any PHP, JavaScript, CSS, XHTML code) is not required to be under the same license. If all your code does is make use of the API of MODx or any GPL software that is a part of your website, without modifying any of the core files distributed with the GPL software, then you are free to license your add-on code however you want to.

In that sense then, there is really no difference between LGPL and GPL in the context of licensing MODx add-ons, or web applications that do not require physical compilation and linking in general. In other words, GPL is not imposing any restrictions that LGPL would relieve for MODx component distributors. Someone please correct me if I’m mistaken here...

Quote from: steph at Dec 18, 2006, 09:50 AM

Are you saying that if I modify the modx code I must use the GPL if I choose to distribute the changes under the name of modx, but if I rename the software I can distribute it closed source with a commercial license?

Not at all. Igor is a bit confused, and I’ll address his points in a separate post. It doesn’t matter what you call you product -- if it’s derived from GPL code, then it must be distributed under the GPL license.

Igor (or should I call you Yuri from your avatar? )

I’d like to comment on a few things you said --

Quote from: oigor at Dec 18, 2006, 09:38 AM

But, I don’t know why do you allways refer to deliverables of source code, when you must deliver it anyway - otherwise nothing will work. If I’m not mistaken, PHP is not a compiled language, and it is always delivered as SOURCE. Those issues about the code are important for C programmers, not for PHP programmers.

Note true. What about when you use the Zend compiler to create compiled PHP code? My point is that these issues as as 100% relevant to C programmers, as they are to PHP guys, as they are to any programming language.

Quote from: oigor at Dec 18, 2006, 09:38 AM

Also, you are confusing all the time your obligations to the client and your obligations to MODx. Those are sparate things and you should not combine them. The context is different - for MODx you are a customer, for your dustomer you are a distributor. (Here, when I say "you", I don’t mean you personally, but in general, to all of us on this topic)

No I think you’re the one confused here. Under the GPL the user of the code has *no* obligations to the creators of the original code except to follow the GPL. As a distributor of GPL code I can do literally anything I want with it except change the license under which its given to others.

Quote from: oigor at Dec 18, 2006, 09:38 AM

To shorten - you have obligations to MODx only and ONLY if you want to deliver your product under the name of MODx. It means, that ONLY if you download MODx v.0.9.5 and you add your template, and you add your snippets, and you eventually change the code of core MODx, AND YOU WANT TO KEEP CALLING IT MODx, then you have obligations to MODx development team. This is normal, isn’t it? Imagine that everybody here starts releasing his own MODx. Who would support such a software. This is why you should coordinate with MODx team. This is why if you find a problem in the core MODx, you should always inform guys here. This is why you should always download the official verion, etc, etc. Simple as that.

Again, this is plain wrong. When you download modx code, you have no obligation to modx developers or users. You can legally take the modx code and rename it "Igor’s, Chapayev’s, Petya’s, and Vanya’s Fantastic CMS" and sell it that way. And as long as you sold that code under the GPL license, you’re allowed to do that.

Quote from: oigor at Dec 18, 2006, 09:38 AM

On the other hand, you con download MODx, do whatevery you like and change it as much as you like, and change the license - but you MUST NOT CALL IT MODx. Yet you have to explain in your license and other documents that you have developed your system under the MODx platform.

You’re confusing the GPL with the trademark for the MODx name. The GPL does not control what I can call my code. I am allowed under the GPL to take the MODx code and modify it and distribute it as "MODx" or I could sell it as the "Oracle Application Server". That’s NOT a violation of the GPL at all, but it IS a violation of the trademark for both of those names.

Quote from: oigor at Dec 18, 2006, 09:38 AM

The example is Oracle Application Server. It is one of the most expensive J2EE servers. Oracle has embedded Apache Web server inside and it is now an integrated component of OAS. They have taken Apache 1.3, but they have developed many modules that are specific for Oracle Application Server. Do you think you can get the source for those modules??? They have changed the name of that HTTP Server too and they call it Oracle HTTP Server. Do you think there is the source available? Wel NO ! There is no source and you have to pay for that software to use it. The only thing they did in regard to Apache is that they really mention in one miserable file that it was originally an Apache server.

And they’re allowed to do that. You know why? Because Apache is not under the GPL -- Apache has its own (BSD derived) license. Oracle could not do that wtih GPL-licensed software.

Quote from: oigor at Dec 18, 2006, 09:38 AM

It is not true that you have to publish the code for anything you develop on Linux. The story about the router is not correct in that sense. Do you think that you can obtain the sorce code of Oracle Database 10g that is running on Linux? NO! You cannot. Although, the platform where the database runs is GPL licensed indeed. I have a huge list of proucts that run on GPL platforms and are not GPL.

You misunderstood the story about the router. If you use Linux as a platform for your device, and you make modifications to the OS or the kernel, you have to make those changes available to your customers. And the router people now do that. As does TiVo (which uses Linux), and as does Oracle (they distribute the changes they make to the OS). But you are correct in saying that you can have non-GPL applications running on a GPL OS

vbrilon you are right.

According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License the source must be given.

The confusion starts with software like Oracle Database running on Linux. They indeed use gcc and glibc to compile and link their binaries. I see that they use LGPL libraries - glibc is LGPL.
I think that the Qt example is interesting. They have 4 types of licenses! http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/licensingoverview
You’re right about Apache - it is not GPL. It has Apache License.

It is exactly like rthrash posted in the sticky topic. The catch is - if you mess with GPL code, then you are GPL addicted and you become GPL. Otherwise you can be whatever you like and coexist with the rest of GPL system.

I personally never had a problem with open source, because I never hide the code. Why would I? I make information systems and I deliver the code even when I make all the system on Oracle, BEA or MS. On the other hand, those clients always come to me for support, even though they do have the code.

Igor

Quote from: oigor at Dec 18, 2006, 04:25 PM

I personally never had a problem with open source, because I never hide the code. Why would I? I make information systems and I deliver the code even when I make all the system on Oracle, BEA or MS. On the other hand, those clients always come to me for support, even though they do have the code.

And that’s something you and I can definitely agree on

It’s nice to have a variety of licenses out there -- so that programmers can choose the one that suits them. I fully recognize that there are times when the GPL is not appropriate for a project due to business matters. And that’s OK, that project can do what works for them. If you don’t like the GPL license, then simply don’t use GPL code.

I think Jason’s post would be a good one to get pinned somewhere where it’s easy for folks with similar concerns to spot it and reference back to it.

It’d be especially useful if anyone runs into any bother with GPL and MODx from those few fanatics who think that if you’re in the same room with GPL you have to become GPL or else. I’ve met a few over the years (on the net, not in person though - they’re far too scary! ).

Which of Jason’s posts, and actually, which Jason?

This one: http://modxcms.com/forums/index.php/topic,9987.msg69707.html#msg69707

It’s possibly the clearest of the lot and comes from someone quite official, but that’s just my opinion.