Selling a GPL/LGPL software as a company
-
Neither LGPL nor GPL prohibits you from selling your software.
But if you license your software to GPL. You are agreeing to provide the source code of your sw to those to whom you distribute(sell).
Under LGPL you are not required to open up your source code, BUT you have to provide the customer the ability to link your application to updated libraries/ their own stuff. And in general abide by LGPL rules
For the love of god, also check with an actual lawyer they do get paid, and paid well for a reason, for these kind of questions
My question may has already been answered but I couldn't find the one I was looking for, so I'm asking it here
yes, yes it has :P
-
If your own software is under the GPL you need to provide the source code. And everybody who has the software or the source code is allowed to distribute the software – even free of charge. The best business model you can have with a GPL license is to provide support for the software and getting paid for the support.
The LGPL is only helpful when you have third-party libraries under the LGPL as your own software can use another license. I am not sure how the LGPL applies to the full software instead of libraries. My understanding of the LGPL is that everything under the LGPL also requires of you that you either distribute the source code directly or that you provide a written offer valid for at least 3 (???) months to hand out the source code when you sell the software. You could gamble that nobody will request the source code within the 3 months and you never have to hand it out. I guess that the LGPL has no advantage over the GPL when applied to the whole software. If only the libraries are LGPL everything only applies to the libraries and not your own source code which you are not obliged to put under the LGPL. For every library under the LGPL you must have a copy of the source code and give it to your clients (distribute it or written offer). Even though your own code does not have to be under the LGPL, like @J-Hilk mentioned customers need to have the possibility to relink your application with a different version of the LGPL library/libraries. Dynamic libraries is the easiest way to go here.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@SimonSchroeder Never heard or read about such a 3 months rule. You should read the LGPL again. It is totally different from what you wrote here.
-
@Volker75 Not three months, three years minimum.
LGPL 3 "Combined Works", Section 4 d) , "Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, ... in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source."
GPL 3 Section 6 b). provides the option, "accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid..."
Similar provisions are in LGPL/GPL 2.
Any given lawyer will likely read that differently to me.
-
Yes. But:
Quote "You could gamble that nobody will request the source code within the 3 months and you never have to hand it out. "
I guess guys will misunderstand this sentences. This time limit doesn't start with the first customer. So you can't say: Hey, my first customer bought it already 5 years ago. I don't need to share the source anymore. As soon as someone get/download the binary from you again this time limit restarts again.
So in fact it mean: As long as you are activity distributing the binary, you must still be able to distribute the source also. -
Does this have to be complicated anymore ?
LGPL V3 - in summary - i'd say - sell/give/open your stuff together with - "untouched" libraries of LGPL V3 heritage (in this case Qt Libs). How the end user gets the dependency libs - well - could be through a repository ? or distribution by the you (company) ?
As long as the libs are not changed (which is normally the case - unless you recompile it), what's the problem ?
About the highly paid lawyer : Honestly, so far i got the answers from them in such a way that normal human(a programmer) cant understand :D :D
I must be thoroughly wrong. But i know , people like me are still lurking around the answers in simple terms.
-
@Rahul-Das Well, the initial question was about selling GPL (and LGPL) software. So it will be wrong just to say: "Yes, you can if nobody ask for source in the first 3 years." It is more complicated. If it is LGPL, but NOT GPL, then he can do it without publishing his source, as long as the LGPL code is untouched and no other GPL/LGPL code is copy & pasted in his/your own source and if the dll is shared or offered changeable by object files. It must be possible to create that LGPL libraries, by the source code, ... There are several point to check.
And i also know a few reasons why guys slightly want to modify the LGPL code. And I also know guys that like to have a commercial license, but their business it too small and they can't pay it. -
@Rahul-Das said in Selling a GPL/LGPL software as a company:
How the end user gets the dependency libs - well - could be through a repository ? or distribution by the you (company) ?
As long as the libs are not changed (which is normally the case - unless you recompile it), what's the problem ?This has been discussed over and over again: You need to have the source code of the exact version of the LGPL library you used. And it is not sufficient to link to someone else hosting the code. You must have control over the source. You can host it yourself and maybe you could also have your own repository on GITHub or similar.
@Volker75 said in Selling a GPL/LGPL software as a company:
Well, the initial question was about selling GPL (and LGPL) software.
Nothing is preventing you from selling software under the GPL (as long as you also provide the source code, which is not what the OP wants). However, you cannot in any way restrict what the customer does with the software afterwards. He is allowed to sell it, too. He is also allowed to give it away for free. This hardly makes it a viable business strategy. Linux is GPL and SUSE and RedHat are selling Linux. It mostly works for them because of the support they are selling together with the product.
-
This post is deleted!
