[License-discuss] Fwd: Question regarding GNU Terms of use

[David Woolley]

On 18/06/15 13:27, Riccardo Ciullo wrote:

>
> I am writing to you because I have a doubt regarding GNU/MIT terms of
> use, which I hope you can clarify:  what happens if someone creates a
> _new system_ by using a _combination_ of (more than one) existing
> softwares covered by the GNU/MIT public license (or other free software
> licenses)? Will he be able to i) _commercialize _ this new

Suggesting that open source and commercializable are mutually exclusive 
won't get you much sympathy on this list.  That's even true for strong 
copyleft.

Even Microsoft have open source software in their products:  a recent 
version of IE has BSD, JPEG, ISC, and Apache licensed material in it, 
and Windows Server 2003 also had MIT licensed material.  I imagine that 
the core of Windows still has, but I couldn't find the third party 
credits document for a later version.

RedHat has built a large business on top of what is almost entirely open 
source and for which they provide all the source code.

Google and the mobile phone companies have made a lot out similar set of 
components, together with open source Java from Google itself; it's 
called Android.

Tivo and other set top box manufacturers have maybe half the code as 
open source (again Linux so again the same sort of mix) and they have to 
release the modified source code for those parts.

> system/product, characterized by a totally new application if compared
> with the used source codes (covered by the relevant open license),
> without facing any infringement of the license?  and ii) will he be able
> to prohibit no-authorized parties to copy it, use it, sell it, etc in
> the market?

Again, you won't get a lot of sympathy here, but MIT licensed material 
fully supports that, as the only obligations are to acknowledge the 
original copyright owner, not to take their name in vain, and not to 
hold them responsible.

GPL is more complex.  Generally if the GPL code is sufficiently at arms 
length from the proprietary code that glues it together, or forms 
another part of the application, the proprietary code remains the 
exclusive copyright of its owners.  The GPLed code and modified versions 
of it are covered by the GPL and you must provide the source code of 
those parts, and cannot restrict the use of that source code.

The authors of the GPL generally take the position that if the code is 
statically or dynamically linked, or any part is physically included in 
the input to a compiler, it is covered by the GPL and if the 
relationship is like that of shelling out to a Unix shell command, or 
via a network connection or file, it probably isn't.  However, if you 
have any uncertainty about the meaning of GPL, you should employ a 
qualified lawyer to analyze whether your intended use is compatible.

The people who use MIT and BSD licences want maximum exploitation of 
their original code.  The GPL people also want to prevent proprietary 
forks of their code.