I did not find clear answers on this, and reading the original texts of GPL, I did not find clear restrictions about such case. So here's my question: Can I use GPL libraries inside a commercial application, and not redistribute the source code of my application as long as I do not modify the original GPL library and redistribute the GPL library source code if asked to ? What are my obligations for such case ? Thanks

Quote: Original post by rldivide
I did not find clear answers on this, and reading the original texts of GPL, I did not find clear restrictions about such case. So here's my question:

Can I use GPL libraries inside a commercial application, and not redistribute the source code of my application as long as I do not modify the original GPL library and redistribute the GPL library source code if asked to ?

What are my obligations for such case ?

Thanks

No, If you use a GPL library you have to release your code under the GPL aswell. (You're allowed to use it in commercial software though).

Very few libraries however use the GPL (Most OpenSource libraries use the LGPL which allows dynamic linking with proprietary code), the few that does are either intended for use with other GPL applications only, or have an alternative license you can buy for proprietary software.

If you say which library it is you're interested in using i'm sure people here can point you towards an alternative that has a license that suits your needs.

Well, I did not find any mention of this in the original GPL license text (untouched GPL lib making the whole application code GPL too). Could you point me to the part where it is said so ?

Quote: Original post by rldivide
Well, I did not find any mention of this in the original GPL license text (untouched GPL lib making the whole application code GPL too). Could you point me to the part where it is said so ?

It doesn't, it just speaks of derivative works, the FSF considers software that links with their code derivative works though and most developers who use the GPL for libraries would probably do the same (Otherwise there is no reason to use it over the LGPL).

If you and the author of the library disagree on what constitutes a derivative work it would be up to a court to decide.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Quote: Original post by rldivide
Thanks for the clarifications.

Heres the link from their FAQ:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

Of course there's nothing stopping you contacting the author and asking him for an alternative license. Explain what you need and why you need it. I realize this might seem obvious, but so often I see people talking about the GPL as though it's some kind of immovable object that even the author who picked it cannot control. It's only as immovable as the guy who chose it as his license. If he chooses to give you an alternative license - whether free or at some kind of cost - then that's his choice. And I know from personal experience that it's worth asking because I've asked for alternative licenses myself a couple of times, and been granted them.

Most AAA console developers avoid GNU, GPL and LGPL software like the plague. Many publishers require warranties that such open source code is not included in game. I agree you should look for an alternative or see if the author has a commercial version of the code that you can use without disclosing your own code or committing it to open source.

Quote: Original post by sybixsus
Of course there's nothing stopping you contacting the author and asking him for an alternative license.

A typical useful open source project has tens or even hundreds of contributors, and they must all agree on the new license. This is why commercial developers tend to avoid GPL licenses—getting a different license approved if it wasn't intended from the very beginning is quite difficult on medium-to-large projects.

Quote: Original post by sybixsus
Of course there's nothing stopping you contacting the author and asking him for an alternative license. Explain what you need and why you need it. I realize this might seem obvious, but so often I see people talking about the GPL as though it's some kind of immovable object that even the author who picked it cannot control. It's only as immovable as the guy who chose it as his license. If he chooses to give you an alternative license - whether free or at some kind of cost - then that's his choice. And I know from personal experience that it's worth asking because I've asked for alternative licenses myself a couple of times, and been granted them.

That works if there's a single copyright holder. If there are multiple contributors (fairly common in FOSS libraries), and those contributors didn't assign copyrights to a single entity, then you'd have to get everyone to agree to an alternative license. All those contributors may still own the copyright to their own code.

edit: Changed wording to be a bit more accurate.