Contents
Can a company make a modified version of the GPL?
(#UnreleasedMods) The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.
Can a GPL program run on anyone else’s computer?
That code runs on your computer, nobody else’s. Since the GPL code doesn’t execute on anyone else’s machine, they cannot demand to see the source for the running program, even if it was modified.
How are GPL libraries used in software development?
Internally, our software will be using some GPL libraries to generate its output. However, the software itself will not be distributed. Users will either receive a virtual machine with the pipeline set up which they can run locally, or submit their input data to us and access their results from a web interface.
What does GPL stand for in the GNU license?
“GPL” stands for “General Public License”. The most widespread such license is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short. This can be further shortened to “GPL”, when it is understood that the GNU GPL is the one intended.
Can a software license give you full ownership?
Software licenses will either get in the way of this full ownership (as proprietary ones often do) or facilitate full ownership (as open-source ones often do).
Is it legal to use GPL code in a proprietary, closed?
An “original work” that uses code from another source is in fact a derivative work of both the original work and the other source, and it is the derivative work that is required to be licensed under the GPL. The original work remains under whatever licence it had before.
Can a GPL-covered program be released under the FSF?
The FSF has this to say in the GNU FAQ, emphasis mine: A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all.
Why does GPL have to cover the whole thing?
So the GPL has to cover the whole thing. If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this?