Basically the way I have viewed it is this:

You can ell GPL binaries. but you are obligated to supply the source code,
either with the purchase or via download.  You do NOT have to give it to
everyone.  You can say only your customers get the source code, BUT they can
give it to someone else if they want.

You basically can't have a GPL program use non-gpl libraries because that
would lock the GPL program needing a proprietary library to run, which would
make the point of it pointless.

Adam Lang
Systems Engineer
Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Rowe" <>
To: "Midrange-L" <>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: Samba (was: OS-X vs. Windows)

> On Thu, 2001-12-20 at 07:21, Brad Jensen wrote:
> > > This is talking about the *source*. Charge what you like for
> > binary
> > > distribution, as long as you make the code available to those
> > who have
> > > the binaries. How do you think the likes of RedHat can charge
> > $60 for
> > > their current Linux distribution? Charge for support, value
> > added
> > > features, etc. Or do things the SuSE way and include some
> > non-GPL
> > > installer/admin software that directs the proceedings and
> > prevents
> > > anyone making their own SuSE based distro.
> >
> > That's an interesting way of looking at it. We've been working on
> > a modified version of VNC, to get thru firewalls and do a couple
> > of other things. We aren't selling it, because the way we read the
> > license all we can do is charge for support.
> Hi Brad
> Licenses are *interesting* things :) There's still a lot of confusion on
> what you can and can't do with GPL software. In particular the tricky
> aspect of what combining GPL with non-GPL is valid. See
> for the
> official answer to this. Can you offer a better install mechanism or
> easier configuration of VNC[1] to add value to your version?
> I'm interested in knowing how this applies to OS/400 programming, wrt
> RPG, CL and the like. My understanding (std disclaimer IANAL[2]) is that
> a standard command or call from a GPL to non-GPL (say IBM or third
> party) or vice versa is okay, but GPL <--> non-GPL bound or procedure
> calls would not be. I guess service programs would be fine under the
> LGPL, as they seem analogous to the *nix library function.
> Regards, Martin
> [1] - a brilliant bit of software if
> you've not come across it yet. Get remote acces to Windows desktops or
> turn a *nix box into a GUI terminal server for your Windows clients. We
> use it on a number of machine at work
> [2] I am not a lawyer
> --
> /"\
> DBG/400 - DataBase Generation utilities - AS/400 / iSeries Open        \
> /
> Source free test environment tools and others (file/spool/misc)
> X
> [this space for hire]  ASCII Ribbon Campaign against HTML mail & news  /
> \
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
> To post a message email:
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit:
> or email:
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.