Contents
Can you make proprietary software under the GPL?
Using a certain GNU program under the GPL does not fit our project to make proprietary software. Will you make an exception for us? It would mean more users of that program. If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses?
Is it better to use the GNU GPL or the GPL?
Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work. However, in some special situations it can be better to use a more permissive license.
Do you need special permission to use the GNU GPL?
Yes, you do. “Fair use” is use that is allowed without any special permission. Since you don’t need the developers’ permission for such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about it—in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software license.
What are the options for compliance with the GPL?
GPL’s binary distribution sections offer a choice of compliance methods, each of which we consider in turn. Each option refers to the “Corresponding Source” code for the binary distribution, which includes the source code from which the binary was produced.
Which is the current version of the GPL?
This page contains answers to commonly asked questions about the GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2. The FAQ for the current version of the GPL is here. To learn more about the Free Software Foundation’s other licenses, please see our licenses page.
Is the X11 license compatible with the GPL?
No. The X11 license is compatible with the GPL, so you can add a module to the GPL-covered program and put it under the X11 license. But if you were to incorporate them both in a larger program, that whole would include the GPL-covered part, so it would have to be licensed as a whole under the GNU GPL.
Do you need GPL license to use LGPL libraries?
If you release/distribute software using LGPL’d libraries, your software doesn’t need to be covered by the GPL, but the libraries must retain the LGPL. Modification of [L]GPL’d components suggests contribution back to the creator/maintainer. I’m not clear on how that affects your product’s licensing.
Can a distributed GPL program violate its own license?
Infecting means derived program violate GPL, infected means GPL program violate its own license. No problem exists when you compile a distributed GPL source as act individual (person, org, company).