Basic GPL Question (Newbie Warning)

[Russell Nelson]

Kelly Anderson writes:
 > commercial product page on the official SA home page. By one reading of the 
 > GPL, if one uses GPL software to create a derivative work, the derivative 
 > work must also be released under the GPL.

That is the standard reading.

 > Are the SA folks, and their users playing fast and loose with the
 > GPL or is this the way the GPL is designed to work?

They might be dual-licensing it.  You'll be able to tell if they ask
for copyright assignments or some other contractual agreement for
contributed code beyond fair use.  If you send a single line patch,
chances are good that there is little originality incorporated in it
so you'd have a hard time claiming copyright.

 > Another reading of the GPL would be that if you MODIFY the source before 
 > you use it, you have to release the modification.

No.  If you distribute a modified binary, you have to distribute the
source.  Distributed binaries have to be licensed under the GPL, as
above.

 > If you didn't release it under the GPL, would you be prohibited from using 
 > the port in your own programs?

"If you didn't stop beating your wife, would you be prohibited from
doing so?"  If you don't ask a positive question, you don't make it
easy for your reader to understand it.

 > Would you be permitted to charge a "distribution fee" for the source code 
 > of the port?

Yes, you are.

-- 
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com  | Violence never solves
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | problems, it just changes
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 cell  | them into more subtle
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 212-202-2318 VOIP  | problems.