GPL licensing - is it actually legal?

[John E]

The reason this all came about is because I got asked to write some features for an existing GPL product. The existing devs are trying to persuade me that 'free' means 'as in speech' - it doesn't mean that I can't charge for the features once they're finished.

However, this would be a major undertaking (perhaps up to a year's work) and whilst the Free Software Foundation states that you may charge for your work, my interpretation is that you can (realistically) only charge for the first sale. After you've released that first copy, anyone can obtain the source, build your app and distribute it for free. This is perfectly legal under the GPL. So yes, you can get paid - but (realistically) only once. Any further payment you receive for your work is entirely down to goodwill.

For me, this kinda explains why Linux has got such a small market share. Over the years I've listened to countless Linux fans bleating about Microsoft's 'dirty tricks' and yet it's the GPL that must surely be shooting Linux in the foot.

[asantavicca]

The reason this all came about is because I got asked to write some features for an existing GPL product. The existing devs are trying to persuade me that 'free' means 'as in speech' - it doesn't mean that I can't charge for the features once they're finished.

However, this would be a major undertaking (perhaps up to a year's work) and whilst the Free Software Foundation states that you may charge for your work, my interpretation is that you can (realistically) only charge for the first sale. After you've released that first copy, anyone can obtain the source, build your app and distribute it for free. This is perfectly legal under the GPL. So yes, you can get paid - but (realistically) only once. Any further payment you receive for your work is entirely down to goodwill.

For me, this kinda explains why Linux has got such a small market share. Over the years I've listened to countless Linux fans bleating about Microsoft's 'dirty tricks' and yet it's the GPL that must surely be shooting Linux in the foot.

"free as in speach" is a pretty common term for open-source (as opposed to "free as in beer"). And you can charge as much as you like for any software you've built or adapted from GPL - as long as you release the source. Selling the software usually implies that there is some sort of support that goes along with it. That's usually why people are willing to pay for it (i.e. Linux's Red Hat).


Here's something else to think about: If you're using a particular piece of code in your business and it's generating a competitive advantage, you DON'T ever want that to be open-source! You'd be shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm curious to see what court cases have made rulings on GPL because last I heard there was nothing in the works. The whole debate over whether it was a viable license was still only in theory.

[John E]

Asantavicca - see Mikeathon's link about 10 posts back. A few cases seem to have been successful in court but it looked to me as if the awards were for costs only. I suppose one of the difficulties for the claimant is proving they've suffered a loss. As I mentioned earlier, if you give something to someone for free it's difficult to argue later that the other person has somehow deprived you financially - so I'd imagine that damages will tend to be low in claims like this.

[asantavicca]

Asantavicca - see Mikeathon's link about 10 posts back. A few cases seem to have been successful in court but it looked to me as if the awards were for costs only. I suppose one of the difficulties for the claimant is proving they've suffered a loss. As I mentioned earlier, if you give something to someone for free it's difficult to argue later that the other person has somehow deprived you financially - so I'd imagine that damages will tend to be low in claims like this.

Yeah, I was looking at that. Most of those look like they've been settled out of court, unless I'm reading them wrong (though there is one court verdict from Germany). And I tend to agree with the fact that compensitory damages would be minimal. Though I suppose that punitive damages could be assessed.

[TheCPUWizard]

Ironically the one case where I was scheduled to be an expert witness went something like this...

1) Company "A" writes code, publishes it as GPL
2) Company "B" incorporates signitifant portions of the GPL code into their proprietary product
3) Company "A" takes the position of "renmove the code" or "publish source".
4) Company "B" sues Company "A" for infringement of copyrighted material.

Settled out of Court, but Company "A" got a whole bunch of cash.