Skip to main content

Timeline for GPL in the workplace?

Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5

6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 22, 2010 at 20:35 comment added HedgeMage -1, misleading answer. This is only true for some definitions of "use" and "proprietary". For example, I could create an embedded Linux product, and only release the Linux kernel and code that links directly to the kernel code, but not my UI or other apps that just happen to run on a GPLed kernel. Many such relationships exist. The ambiguity in this use of "proprietary" is already covered. Also, in most jurisdictions, a "work for hire" only given to the party who hired a developer to code it is not the same as distribution. IANAL, etc.
Oct 13, 2010 at 21:25 comment added alternative @Mr. C by proprietary code I do mean code that is incompatible with the GPL. And the code is distributed to client so... But yeah, I'm no lawyer so I might be wrong.
Oct 13, 2010 at 21:10 comment added Shog9 It all depends on what you mean by "proprietary code". If you mean, "code that you own" then this makes no sense - GPL can't take away your copyright, so unless you assign it to the FSF of your own volition you still own the code that you write. OTOH, if you mean, "code you wish to distribute under a license incompatible with GPL" then you are correct - just as you were able to obtain and use the source you're building on, you are obligated to grant your users this right to your source. Again, it's about distribution - no one who cannot obtain your program has rights to your code.
Oct 13, 2010 at 20:54 comment added alternative Proprietary code cannot use GPL code. Its part of the reason for the existance of the license.
Oct 13, 2010 at 20:34 comment added dash-tom-bang This makes no sense. The GPL does not state that proprietary code can't use it. The GPL is all about distribution, as Mr. C's answer states clearly. In short- you are not allowed to distribute software that uses GPL code unless you also distribute the source code for that software under a compatible license.
Oct 13, 2010 at 20:14 history answered alternative CC BY-SA 2.5