Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!AI.MIT.EDU!tower From: tower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: GNU C++ on ISC2.0.2 Message-ID: <9101300021.AA05609@wheat-chex> Date: 30 Jan 91 00:21:02 GMT References: <1542@tcs.tcs.com> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: tower@prep.ai.mit.edu Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation, 675 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296 Lines: 71 From: gwu@nujoizey.tcs.com (George Wu) Keywords: GNU liscense restrictions Date: 15 Jan 91 03:13:28 GMT Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Apparently-To: lang-c++-netnews-dist@prep.ai.mit.edu In article <646@tronsbox.xei.com>, tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (Kenneth Jamieson) writes: |> What are the liscence restrictions with GNU C++ to develop |> commercial software ??? I know that it USED to be 100% forbidden |> but someone mentioned that that was going to change ... has it ????? It is the FSF's goal to prevent you from making a profit reselling GNU software (among other things). FSF doesn't care if you make a profit or not reselling GNU software. FSF only cares that all GNU software be freely redistributable. Some see this goal as preventing resellers from making a profit, some don't. Anything you write in standard C++ you can resell, since your code should be compilable with any C++ compiler. Anything which uses a GNU library, you cannot (re)sell. The FSF realizes this, and has recently published a modified liscensing proposal for libraries. This license, the GNU Library General Public License (LGPL), is not yet published, though drafts have been posted for review. The general idea is the FSF would like to make their libraries something of a standard, which is difficult with so many vendors refusing to use it. We like to see our library freely shared as much as possible. We hope that those linking with proprietary code under the LGPL will help improve the libraries. The new proposal should allow vendors to write code using GNU libraries. But the new liscense is still just a proposal. Wait a month or two. |> Does this also apply to gnudbm ?? Dunno. I suspect it's much like using any GNU utility. Selling your own code is no problem. It's when your deliverable includes an actual chunk of something the FSF wrote that problems occur. The LGPL will only apply to lib-g++ initially. FSF will evaluate how much proprietary linkers are contributing before deciding what other libraries to move from the GPL to the LGPL. Other authors can, of course use either licesne as they decide. Incidentally, I just use GNU stuff from time to time. I'm not connected with them. I'm not a spokesman. I'm not a lawyer. Clearly, you got a lot of the facts wrong. George PS: Followups to one of the GNU groups. ie. gnu.g++.help or gnu.misc.discuss. Now that we have the facts straight, please use gnu.misc.discuss for Followups, not gnu.g++.help or comp.lang.c++. ---- George J Wu | gwu@tcs.com or uunet!tcs!gwu Software Engineer | 2201 Dwight Way, Berkeley, CA, 94730 Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc.| (415) 649-3752 enjoy -len