is it a violation of the GPL license if I sell the products of the program, not the program itself?

If you mean like selling a book you wrote in a GPLed world editor, or some equivilant scenario, then yes you can sell it.

I mean selling a program I wrote in Dev-C++, dont I need a distribution license?

Yes, using a program is not deriving from it, therefore you can sell your program, unless you used GPL libraries in it.

yeah you can sell it, but you will have to relinquish the source code.

I'm think that when using a program that is under GPL you can do whatever the hell you want with the outputs, however if you release anything that uses source code (or a library) that is under GPL then you have to also release your source code under the GPL with the program you make. However, this doesn't mean you can't charge for it :)

Yeah the GPL only refers to the program or modified versions of the program, so the outputed executables from DevC++ falls completely outside of it.

You should read it. Its not that long or complicated.

You only have to license your program under GPL (in which case you can still sell it - GPL allows that - but you have to release the source code too) if the GPL program you use links parts of itself or other GPL code with your program. For example, if you use a GPL library then your program must be licensed under GPL.

As far as i know, the libraries that come with a "core" (ie with not additional "packages") Dev-C++ allows you to link at them without problem.

Quote:

I mean selling a program I wrote in Dev-C++, dont I need a distribution license?

No, you're fine.

Just be careful to read the licence. If it says you must follow the terms of the licence or any newer version of the GPL, I'd probably stay clear. Richard Stallman, legal counsel Eben Moglen and some of the other people writing "GPL v3" have stated that are trying to close a "loophole" that exists in the way the "if you aren't distributing binaries to the public you don't need to distribute source" clause works. Now the purpose of the clause is to allow you to make a modication to your own copy (or your companies copy) of a piece of OSS, without forcing you to release the source. As long as the new source is for internal use only, the source distribution obligations of the GPL are lifted (this way you can safely modify or even attach a piece of GPL software to your own internal software, without being forced to licence your software under the GPL and provide to the public in source form free of charge).

The "loophole" that GNU has decided exists is that a company can use and modify GPL software "internally", and then provide the result of the running program to the public - since they are not providing any GPL based binaries, they are in the clear. This is mainly the realm of web based service companies - a user/client can input data and recieve the result (as processed by GPL software), but the software itself remains on an internal company server the entire time.

The change they have proposed is that companies who use GPL for a service would need to pay a fee, even if the software is only used internally, unless they make make all software GPL. This has a chilling effect, as including the output of GPL software as a trigger for the GPL clause suddenly makes a lot of common companies uses of GPL software "illegal" (along the lines of the earlier concern over GPL fonts [which can be embedded and are automatically "modified" in PDF and similar document types] meaning the documents themselves are suddenly "GPL" and must be distributed to the public).

More alarming is that they wish to make this change retroactive - unless the GPL agreement that was included with the software specifically limited itself to an earlier version of the GPL, you're stuck with a retroactive contract change (so basically GNU can go around blackmailing companies into either divulging vitial corporate assets to their competitors, or pay hush money to Stallman, all because they made the mistake of using GPL software)