It's important to note that you don't have to release your source code to everyone, only to those you are giving a binary. In other words, it does not have to be a public project. Your only obligations are to those you chose to distribute to.
It depends how you define public. Because, if you give binary to someone, this someone asks for source code and then can publish the source code to everybody.
@@PSAfterHours After being publicly published, that version would be publicly available no doubt, but it's not mandated to do that. I just want to point it out because it is a common misunderstanding that GPL software (or even free software in general) has to be developed in public, and that you have to publish changes, or send any changes to the original developer, but none of these things are true.
Oh, I see. So in this case, Microsoft can make their own Linux Distro for in house use (because windows sucks for microsoft employees as well) and by default it will have the GPLv2 license. But they are not forced to publicize the Source Code if the only ones using the Distro is just their employees.
Distribuíram meu código para todos e expuseram minha vida e estão todos bem loucos agora pq vou furar a barriga de um deles ou mais se puder kkkkkk Os dragões de Sauron não venceram no final vcs sabem oque e o Destino de verdade ? Vcs vão saber kkkkkkk aaaaaa
I still have questions, how does it work with products made from a software under the GPL that are not applications ? Like texts, pictures or musics made with GPL softwares, do they have to follow some rules or does it only applies with applications. And does it work the same with videogames ?
thank you for your explanation however I still have few questions: 1) Let's say that I created a software that I am selling commercially. And I use a software licensed as GPLv3 not for the product that I am selling but for any other business process (IDE, email marketing, landing pages, kanban board, bookkeeping...) with no modifications of the source code. Does that mean that I have to license my software as GPLv3? 2) Some web projects are under the GPLv3 but the maintainers are offering hosting services for users. They clearly need another software to manage the user authentication and hosting, does that mean that the maintainers are violating the licence agreement of their own software? if not then if someone is offering a competing hosting service then would he be in violation of the GPLv3 if he doesn't publish his hosting software? 3) 4) If I license my software under GPLv3, do I have to be the one who is actively enforcing the terms of the license? And if someone violates the terms and distributed software without publishing their source code do I have to be the one who sues them? and if I choose to not enforce the terms of the license (I become aware of someone violating the terms of my license and decide to not do anything about it) what would be the consequences of that? 5) How did GitHub not license their GitHub Copilot under GPLv3? is there a loophole that they used or this is a violation of GPLv3? (they used git repositories to train their AI models) I know it's easy to say "read and figure out for yourself" but English is my 3rd language and the way legal terms and licenses are written is pretty hard for me to understand. I appreciate your answers :) Edit: question 3 is redacted because it was answered in this video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JepUkbZivmY.html
1) No. Using a tool to modify a work does not make that work a derivative work of the tool. Using a tool to organize a project does not make the work in that project a derivative work of the tool either. Understand that the GPL is a copyright license and that it only applies where copyright applies. 2) Again the license only applies where copyright applies, which requires some amount of the work to be copied in whole or in part. Web project can mean a lot of things, so that's best answer I can give. 4) Yes, the copyright holder is the one that litigates. If you choose not to litigate for some time, you are still free to file a suit later. Many companies will comply if you simply inform them. They may not be complying simply due to inexperience. See section 8 of the GPL version 3 for more on license termination. 5) Take a look at the following whitepapers: www.fsf.org/news/publication-of-the-fsf-funded-white-papers-on-questions-around-copilot GPL is rather legible, so I'd recommend you just read it if you haven't tried yet. I highly recommend that you look at the GNU project's GPL FAQ page here: www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
The example of a library here is kinda misleading, because GPL is meant to be used in cases where your code won't normally be used as a part of another program, and thus assumes that anything that uses it is therefore a derivative work of the original. This way people being clever and using wrappers and tricks to produce what is effectively a derivative of the original without touching the original code. If you want to use it for a library, or for that matter any type of code that is meant to be used by other software you should use LGPL, which allows linking but still requires derivative work to be also published under LGPL (and everything is fine). I also don't like the idea that GPL is inherently ill-suited to professional software, as it implies that you can only make money through closed-source code, which as we all know might not be exactly true :) In short, GPL is not inherently bad, if the author wants work derived from his own to be published under the same license it works pretty well. A license is not something with a brain and intentions, but a legal document that properly expresses how we want our work to be used (and how not). Choose your license wisely!
i disagree with gpl is not meant for libraries. there are libraries that are gpl. which means u must gpl ur code too. fsf wants most libs to be gpl(not legal advice, i am not a lawyer).
I also don't like the ill reputation the GPL has for professional software. The GPL doesn't imply that you cant make money off of open source, most source code is compiled into binaries that can only be understood by a computer, so you are free to sell binaries that you make. Most non-technical users don't know how to compile programs and will opt to buy the pre-made builds instead of compiling the source code.
GPL scares companies away, makes derivatives less common stifling potential routes of contribution. GPL is the epitome of moralizing garbage, it sounds good on paper - but in practice is damages the software under it. Netflix contributes most of it's alterations back to FreeBSD. Another thing to consider is that companies that open source their projects tend to use more permissive licenses like BSD, MIT, Apache, etc. Why do you think that companies with a profit motive would give code away for free and without obligation? GPL is an inferior license that is shrinking in relevance with each passing day.
I want to use GPLv3 neural network model for computer vision. So I will train my weights and serve model using restapi. Model and server = GPLv3, but rest of my SW not... right? Thank you
what if i make frontend application using GPLv3 sdk while backend (Restfull API) using PHP, where php is not compatible with GPL. Should both the frontend and backend source code be made public? or just the frontend because it uses GPLv3?
If the protocol is open and can be considered as an independent protocol then no. Your code is not a derivative as any other code can be used instead of GPL code
I don't understand the patent thing added to the GPL 3 after Microsoft did something in Novell. Could someone explain it in plain English? What does it mean for my software if I license under v3, patent wise?
This means, that if a contributor owns a patent for what he implemented, he grants the license to all users and future contributors to use it for free.
@@PSAfterHours which is completely reasonable is it not? if you choose to put your patented code into not only the public domain, but also particularly on a strict copyleft GPLv3 licensed project, that should be expected.
Not quite... it's "dual-licensed under commercial and open source licenses"... the commercial license lets you do whatever you want, without open source obligations, and you also get access to Qt official support... some stuff is only available under the commercial license... but most of it is also available under GPL/LGPL... meaning you don't have to pay for it, and you get access to all the source, but are then obligated to provide your own should you use it in a project...
It's not a virus if you have to participate willingly to contract it. You lack some skills in logic. But you are pretty good at graphic manipulation of facts. It is not education, when your teacher pushes onto you his ideology by warping facts.
