diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index ce5105031c6f3843fee4aaa01f0330d98270d9a9..736d93fc7476c172e4fbacc1b0b7f6cd22358f7e 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -928,14 +928,14 @@ of GPL'ed binaries (which comes with corresponding source, of course), you have the freedom to redistribute that work at any fee you choose, or not at all. Sometimes, companies attempt to build a racket by producing very specialized binaries (perhaps for an obscure architecture), and then -giving source code that does corresponding, but not giving the +giving source code that does correspond, but not giving the ``incantations'' and build plans they used to make that source compile into the specialized binaries. Therefore, \S 3 that the source code -include ``meta-material'' like scripts, interface definitions, and other material -that is used to ``control compilation and installation'' of the binaries. -In this manner, those further down the distribution chain are assured that -they have the unabated freedom to build their own derivative works from -the sources provided. +include ``meta-material'' like scripts, interface definitions, and other +material that is used to ``control compilation and installation'' of the +binaries. In this manner, those further down the distribution chain are +assured that they have the unabated freedom to build their own derivative +works from the sources provided. FSF (as authors of GPL) realizes that software distribution comes in many forms. Embedded manufacturers, for example, have the freedom to put @@ -1280,7 +1280,7 @@ Finally, one important point to remember when reading \S 11 is that \S 1 permits the sale of warranty as an additional service, which \S 11 affirms. -\section{GPL, \S 12} +\section{GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability} \label{GPLs12} There are many types of warranties, and in some jurisdictions some of them @@ -1296,22 +1296,124 @@ So ends the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices} -\section{Using Free Software In-House} +Since GPL'ed software is now extremely prevalent through the industry, it +is useful to has some basic knowledge about using GPL'ed software in +business and how to build business models around GPL'ed software. + +\section{Using GPL'ed Software In-House} + +A discussed in Sections~\ref{GPLs0} and~\ref{GPLs5} of this tutorial, the +GPL only governs the activities of copying, modifying and distributing the +software are not governed by the license. Thus, in FSF's view, simply +installing the software on a machine and using it is not controlled or +limited in any way by GPL\@. Using Free Software in general requires +substantially fewer agreements and less license compliance activity than +any known proprietary software. + +Even if a company engages heavily in copying the software throughout the +enterprise, such copying is not only permitted by \S\S 1 and 3, but it is +encouraged! If the company simply deploy unmodified (or even modified) +Free Software throughout the organization for its employees to use, the +obligations under the license are very minimal. Using Free Software has a +substantially lower cost of ownership --- both in licensing fees and in +licensing checking and handling -- than the proprietary software +equivalents. \section{Business Models} \label{Business Models} -\subsection{Redistribution Sales} +Using Free Software in house is certainly helpful, but there is also a +thriving market for Free Software-oriented business models. There is the +traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions. Many +companies, including IBM and Red Hat, make substantial revenue from this +model. IBM primarily chooses this model because they have found that for +higher-end hardware, the cost of the profit made from proprietary software +licensing fees is negligible. The real profit is in the hardware, but it is +essential that software be stable, reliable and dependable, and the users +be allowed to have unfettered access to it. Free Software, and GPL'ed +software in particular (because IBM can be assured that proprietary +versions of the same software will not exists to compete on their +hardware) is the right choice. + +Red Hat has actually found that a ``convenience fee'' for Free Software, +when set at a reasonable price (around \$60 or so), can produce some +profit. Even though Red Hat's system is fully downloadable on their +website, people still go to local computer stores and buy copies of their +box set, which is simply a printed version of the manual (available under +a free license as well) and the Free Software system it documents. -\subsection{Custom Modification on Contract} - +\medskip + +However, custom support, service, and software improvement contracts are +the most widely used models for GPL'ed software. The GPL is central to +their success, because it ensure that the code base remains common, and +that large and small companies are on equal footing for access to the +technology. Consider, for example, the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). +Cygnus Solutions, a company started in the early 1990s, was able to grow +steadily simply by providing services for GCC --- mostly consisting of +porting GCC to new embedded chipset target platforms. Eventually, Cygnus +was so successful that it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a +profitable division. + +However, there are very small companies like CodeSourcery, as well as +other medium sized companies like MontaVista and OpenTV that compete in +this space. Because the code-base is protect by GPL, it creates and +demands industry trust. Companies can cooperate on the software and +improve it for everyone. Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their +work are happy to pay for improvements, and for ports to new target +platforms, and nearly all the changes fold back into the standard +versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available. + +\medskip -\subsection{Proprietary Relicensing} \label{Proprietary Relicensing} +A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is +proprietary relicensing of a GPL'ed code base. This is only an option for +software in which a particular entity is the sole copyright holder. As +discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is permitted under +copyright law to license a software system under her copyright as many +different ways as she likes to as many different parties as she wishes. + +Some companies, such as MySQL AB and TrollTech, use this to their +financial advantage with regard to a GPL'ed code base. The standard +version is available from the company under the terms of the GPL\@. +However, parties can purchase separate proprietary software licensing for +a fee. + +This business model is problematic because it means that the GPL'ed code +base must be developed in a somewhat monolithic way, because volunteer +Free Software developers may be reluctant to assign their copyrights to +the company because it will not promise to always and forever license the +software as Free Software. Indeed, the company will surely use such code +contributions in proprietary versions licensed for fees. \section{Ongoing Compliance} +GPL compliance is in fact a very simple matter -- much simpler than +typical proprietary software agreements and EULAs. Usually, the most +difficult hurdle is changing from a proprietary software mindset to one +that seeks to foster a community of sharing and mutual support. Certainly +complying with the GPL from a users' perspective gives substantially fewer +headaches than proprietary license compliance. + +For those who go into the business of distributing or distributing +modified versions of GPL'ed software, the burden is a bit higher, but not +by much. The glib answer that is that it is always easy to comply with +the GPL by releasing the whole product as Free Software. However, +admittedly to the chagrin of FSF, many modern and complex software systems +are built using both proprietary and GPL'ed components that are not +legally derivative works of each other. Usually, in product development +with Free Software tools, sometimes it is easier simply to improve +existing GPL'ed application than to start from scratch. In exchange for +that benefit, the license requires that the modifier give back to the +commons that made the work easier. It is a reasonable trade-off, and it +is a way to help build a better world while also making a profit. + +Note that FSF does provide services to assist companies who need +assistance in complying with the GPL. You can contact FSF's GPL +Compliance Labs at . + \appendix \chapter{The GNU General Public License} @@ -1736,3 +1838,4 @@ General Public License instead of this License. % LocalWords: proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs % LocalWords: Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs % LocalWords: Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre PDAs CDs reshifts GPL's Gentoo +% LocalWords: TrollTech