Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

* Wrote about business model and compliance chapter

Browse source 
(section{GPL \S 3: Producing Binaries}): Fixed typo.
	(chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}): Wrote
	chapter.
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2003-05-29 21:12:01 +00:00 committed by Bradley M. Kuhn
parent 39390252fc
commit 9a799821ef
1 changed files with 115 additions and 12 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

127
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -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.
\subsection{Custom Modification on Contract}
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.
\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 <compliance@fsf.org>.
\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