Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

GPLv2 and GPLv3 Coexisting In the Same Project?

Posted by kdawson on Sat Jun 16, 2007 02:43 PM
from the which-side-of-the-fence dept.
GNU is Not Unix
cyclop writes "I am coding a data analysis application in my laboratory that I would like to release as free (as in freedom) software. Moreover I am going to begin a small OSS game that will be based, in part, on GPLv2 libraries. Problem is: in both cases, I'd like to be able to exchange code both with GPLv2 and (future) GPLv3 projects. I have no particular passions about either license — only thing is I don't want BSD-style 'do anything you want' licensing but a copyleft license. I know that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are not compatible. What can I do? Double licensing? Is there a compatible-with-both license? Adding exceptions? What do you think is the best way to address the GPLv2-to-GPLv3 transition without ending up on one or the other side of the barricade?"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

GPLv2 and GPLv3 Coexisting In the Same Project? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • If it's your code do both. (Score:5, Informative)

    by MikeFM (12491) on Saturday June 16 2007, @02:46PM (#19534621) Homepage Journal
    If it's your code you can use whichever licenses you want including making your code available under more than one license. If you're using someone else's code though then you have to stick to their license.

    • True, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ushering05401 (1086795) on Saturday June 16 2007, @04:52PM (#19535609)
      the issue does not seem as simple to most the developers that I know. Anyone coming from the world of proprietary code is used to a very simple system of cooperation: pay for rights.

      Numerous developers see the GPL licensing issues as a lot more complex than they actually are... but that does not change the fact that there are issues to consider.

      Easy example: I wanted to use some custom GUI components to enhance the look of an app, but have no experience in that realm, and no time or inclination to get experienced. It took me a week of sampling packages from proprietary vendors to choose one. Then another week to decide whether to pay the low price for the right to redistribute, or the high price to actually have the code & rights to modify. Easy. What do I want? how important is access to the code? Pay. Done.

      Doing the same thing with GPL code would have required me to review licenses already involved in my project, and my future plans for the project (would I have to excise large portions of code if my business model needs to change to be successful... or if someone wants to purchase my already successful company and change the business model?).

      Anyhow, the GPL is very good at what it does, protecting code. But your simple statement that sums up the issues actually becomes complex in practice.

      Regards.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MikeFM (12491)
        Most experienced developers should have a goof knowledge of the big three open source licenses at least - GPL, LGPL, and BSD. The vast majority of open source code will be under one of those. Just knowing how those relate to each other and apply to your code should cover most of your needs.

        As to not being able to use open source licensed code for your business or having it impact your business model I think that it mostly a FUD issue. It's my experience that the license doesn't make much difference to your
    • The parent poster is exactly right. Very often you see software with the following words in the license:

      This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

      This clause is not part of the license -- it's just wording that the FSF recommends you use when describing the licensing of your software. You can also explicitly say

      • If you link with GPL libraries it is considered by many that your code has to be licensed under that license.
        This is misleading at best. Many GPL'ed libraries, including GNU's own glibc, are licensed with the LGPL (lesser/library GPL). This license lets anyone link to the code. What you say is true only if a library is licensed under the GPL (and not the LGPL).

        • This is misleading at best. (...) What you say is true only if a library is licensed under the GPL (and not the LGPL).

          Right. That's why he said "GPL" and not "LGPL". There are a number of libraries that are licensed explicitly under the GPL with the express purpose of requiring that code linked with them be released under the GPL. In the specific case of "GPLv2 only" libraries, this could cause something of a mess with GPLv3 - hopefully the authors can be persuaded to change their license to "GPLv2 or late

          • Please give an example of a library licensed under the GPLv2 (not the LGPLv2) with the "any later version" clause removed. There is probably a very small intersection between the people who would use the GPL (not the LGPL) for a library and the people who distrust the FSF so much that they would remove the "any later version" clause.

              • The big news in free software land is the patent peace deal between Microsoft and Novell and the SUSE vouchers Microsoft is planning to sell. The vouchers have no expiration date so if just one voucher is redeemed after SUSE releases any GPLv3'ed software then all recipients of that GPLv3'ed software are safe from any Microsoft patent attacks. It is expected that a lot of the packages that make up the GNU+Linux operating system will be switching over to the GPLv3 once it is finalized.

                Unfortunately the

                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by samkass (174571)
                  I highly doubt that logic will hold up in court. In fact, the "or later" clause of the GPL itself has never been tested in court. In addition, I would be surprised if a huge number of free software projects don't fork over the GPLv2/v3 debacle, meaning you'll have two potentially incompatible versions of every library you use.

                  Incidentally, TiVo's use is NOT a "loophole". Back when GPLv2 was written, Stallman only seemed to care about how software was used. Now GPLv3 is trying to restrict people's use of

                  • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                    by DrJimbo (594231)
                    samkass said:

                    Now GPLv3 is trying to restrict people's use of HARDWARE as well.

                    The TiVO hardware is compatible with the GPLv3 according to Jim Barton, the CTO of TiVO who said in an ACM article [acmqueue.com]:

                    Each TiVo DVR includes a secure microprocessor to which are delegated all public-key-based operations. This secure microprocessor contains a unique public/private key pair for each DVR, so that there are no global secrets for DVR authentication.

                    Even existing TiVos could be made GPLv3 compliant if the TiVo corpor

                  • Re:Can you do both at the same time?? (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by DrJimbo (594231) on Sunday June 17 2007, @12:41PM (#19542127)

                    The patents in question for example may be third party ones I can't freely license even if I wanted to.
                    Third party patents are not affected by the GPL. It is not magical.

                    And Linus wants to keep his keys private so he can differentiate between code provided by a trusted party and an untrusted one.
                    Torvalds would be able to keep his private signing keys private even with the GPLv3. This FUD was debunked over a year ago. As long as he isn't trying to use his private key to control what GPLv3 software other people can run on their own hardware, he's fine.

                    It seems that you're arguing for the essentially elitist and undemocratic idea that a small group of experts should be responsible for deciding what improvements to make, and anyone that disagrees is either dumb or worse dishonest.
                    Are you sure you are in the right thread? It seems you are implying that the extremely open process of crafting and refining the lastest version of the GPL was somehow elitist. It was, in fact, one of the most open processes in the history of mankind. The FSF went on a world tour telling anybody and everybody who would listen about their ideas for the new license. The had an interactive version of the license online where anybody could post comments linked directly to any word or phrase in the license and everybody could see all the posted comments. They also encouraged people to email comments. All comments were read and considered by a bunch of committees that were composed of basically everyone who was at all interested in participating.

                    My calling people who disagree with the GPLv3 "dumb or dishonest" seems to be a figment of your imagination. I've always insisted that people are free to use whatever license they want for their own code. I haven't called them dumb or dishonest for making that choice.

                    Lots of big companies would work with GPL2 but can't accept GPL3.
                    SUN and IBM seem happy with the GPLv3. TiVo is not happy because they won't be able to use GPLv3 code without passing on the four freedoms and Microsoft seems horrified by the GPLv3. The GPLv3 does a better job at enforcing freedom. People or corporations who are against freedom will be against the GPLv3. That's fine. But even if a lot of corporations (besides TiVo and Microsoft) were against the GPLv3 I don't think it would be wise to amend it just to cater to them. Most of our world now seems to cater to the large corporations: the mass media is corporate controlled; and even the Congress and the president (both parties) seem to be controlled by the corporations. Would it be such a sin to have one tiny little corner of the world that does not kowtow to the corporations? Free software should not be neutered in order to cater to the whims of people who don't want software to be free.

                    And it's absurd for deveopers to leave in the "version X or later" clause when GPL4 or GPL5 may allow end users of the software to make demands on them which they may not legally be able to meet.
                    No license or contract can force someone to break the law. If you distrust the FSF so much then you shouldn't use the "any later version" clause in your licenses. That's fine. That's your choice. If you are part of a massive project involving many developers then license upgrades will be difficult, perhaps even impossible. I chose to trust the FSF so I kept the "any later version" clause when I licensed my software. That is my choice. I gave up some control in exchange for an easier upgrade path especially for other people who might want to use some of my code in a new project.

              • "I don't sign blank checks"

                It's a bit easier to write another check than to write another software project.

                Mainly the weirdness is due to the changed way the GPL is used these days tho. Originally the FSF was the sole copyright holder to many of the GPL licensed projects (and they require copyright assignment on included code); for them to release code and giving second-hand recepients the option to update the license without the cooperation of middle-men makes perfect sense.

                For other projects requiring cop

      • I can't see how, even if all is your code, you could distinguish multiple licenses inside the same program.
        GPLv2 says that in order for a program to legaly have some GPLv2 code, the entire program must be under GPLv2. GPLv3 says the exact same thing, so both can't coexist legaly inside the same program, even if you wrote it all.

        It can be both in the sense you can say: Here is two licenses: GPLv2 and GPLv3. I offer my code on either license. You just pick one. Thus, the mutual incompability never comes into play.

        However, you are right that the code is not covered by both licenses as once. Thus, for code to be dual licensed, all the code it derives from must be available dual-licensed, too. In other words, choosing the dual license makes less code available to you for inclusion than picking either one. On the other hand, it is ea

  • Probably not as big an issue as you think (Score:5, Informative)

    by shaitand (626655) on Saturday June 16 2007, @02:49PM (#19534649) Homepage Journal
    Remember that almost all GPL'd software permits using the terms of future versions of the GPL. Unless they have chosen to omitt this part of the license you can use GPLv3 without issue. If that won't work, then you should license GPLv2 WITH the option of using the future terms. That way you are compliant with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 and let people work out the library licensing on their own.

    • It would be more properly stated that all code that EXPLICITLY says "GPLv2 or later" permits use with future versions of the GPL. However, whether most code says this or not, I wouldn't speculate.

      Also, most of the code that looks like that, when new versions are released, will begin to say "GPLv3 or later". If you're still relying on GPLv2, you'll be stuck at the license-fork point and won't be able to use new features in that code.

      I don't release any of my code with the "or later" bit, because I don't kn

      • I don't release any of my code with the "or later" bit, because I don't know if I'll agree with what comes later.

        That plan is great until you start accepting code from other people. There will be new GPL revisions periodically, and you don't want your project to be stuck in the position that Linux is in. At very least, I'd suggest requiring that contributors allow you to relicense their code to future versions of the GPL at your discretion.

        • At very least, I'd suggest requiring that contributors allow you to relicense their code to future versions of the GPL at your discretion.
          In fact, the GPLv3 last call draft [fsf.org] includes a provision that endorses such a licensing model:

          If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide whether future versions of the GNU General Public License shall apply, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of any version is permanent authorization for you to choose that version for the Program.
          • Yeah GPL2 or later is a common disclaimer, but if you want to allow both just say so. "This software and any derivatives may be licensed under either GPL2 or GPL3 at your discretion."
      • 'You seem to suggest I can grab GPLv2 code, mix it with my own code, and releasing the final product as GPLv2 or later'

        Where do I suggest that? The question was being asked of GPLv2 libraries and I specifically said this would allow you to let others deal with the libraries.

        That said, I really don't see why not. GPLv2 technically doesn't require you to redistribute under GPLv2, it requires you to allow those you distribute to all the same freedoms they would have under GPLv2. IANAL but as far as I can tell,

  • Just use GPLv2 (Score:5, Informative)

    by 3247 (161794) on Saturday June 16 2007, @02:51PM (#19534669) Homepage
    The licenses are compatible if you just use the wording suggested by the FSF:

    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
    I've highlighted the relevant words.
    • His project could be GPLv2 and let others adopt GPLv3. But he can't accept donated GPLv3 code unless he keeps two copies, one for under each license, and keeps v3 code out of the v2 version.

    • Re:Just use GPLv2 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tim C (15259) on Saturday June 16 2007, @05:45PM (#19535947)
      That doesn't make them compatible. That clause allows the recipient to *change* the licence from v2 to v3 (or later). It does not allow you to mix v2-licensed code and v3-licensed code in the same binary; it means that as soon as you add in some v3-licensed code, the entire thing becomes v3-licensed.
      • Are you intentionally being dense here, or have I smoked too much crack today?

        The original poster said "I have no particular passions about either license". So you change the license in the formerly gplv2 code, then compile it and ship your gplv3 binary with it. Problem solved.

      • I don't know about GPLv3 but technically GPLv2 only requires that you provide the same flexibility and rights to those you distribute to. I could certainly be wrong it has been awhile since I read it so double check. But assuming my memory serves you could always take GPL'd code and redistribute it under a less restrictive license.

        If that is true of GPLv3, you might be able to go backwards since GPLv3 doesn't grant additional rights and only imposes additional restrictions.

  • GPLv2 or later (Score:3, Informative)

    by Aim Here (765712) on Saturday June 16 2007, @02:52PM (#19534671)
    Just pick GPLv2, with the usual 'version 2 or later' language in it, for your own code.

    That allows you to mix any variation of your code, GPLv2-or-later code and/or GPLv3 code in a GPLv3 project.

    It also allows you to use your code with those relatively few projects that are 'GPLv2 only'(such as the Linux kernel) and/or GPLv2-or-later code in a GPLv2-only project.

    That's about as compatible as you'll get with those three flavours of GPL. No license you pick will allow you to mix 'GPLv2 only' code with GPLv3 code.

  • How many binaries involved? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Penguinisto (415985) on Saturday June 16 2007, @02:57PM (#19534709) Journal
    If there's more than one, you can license each binary under whatever license you want, with the libs under LGPL if it floats your boat.

    OR... you can use Trolltech's licensing scheme (OSS projects get to use it free, commercial ones have to pay up licensing fees).

    I like either GPL version, but if you're not too hung-up on using GPL, http://www.opensource.org/ [opensource.org] has a whole array of open-source offically-sanctioned licensing - one of those may fit your needs better. (cue RMS fans w/ mod points stampeding in protest, but seriously; if it does the job, use it).

    The beauty of this is, it's all up to you how you want to handle it.

    /P

    • I like either GPL version, but if you're not too hung-up on using GPL, http://www.opensource.org/ [opensource.org] has a whole array of open-source offically-sanctioned licensing - one of those may fit your needs better. (cue RMS fans w/ mod points stampeding in protest, but seriously; if it does the job, use it).

      So... you're suggesting that he solve his GPL version compatibility problem by choosing some other license that's potentially incompatible with all versions of the GPL? Somehow I don't think that's going to help.

      • Well, the original poster could just choose one from the FSF's list of GPL Compatible Licenses [fsf.org].
        • And choosing a "GPL-compatible" license solves the compatibility problem between GPLv2 and GPLv3, whilst still providing the protections of GPLv3 to some of the code base? Your answer is basically Patient: Doctor it hurts when I do this, Doctor: Then don't do that.

  • Closed Source (Score:4, Funny)

    by dangitman (862676) on Saturday June 16 2007, @03:39PM (#19535055)

    What do you think is the best way to address the GPLv2-to-GPLv3 transition without ending up on one or the other side of the barricade?"

    Just become a closed source developer. That way you won't be on either side of the GPL fence. And you could (nay should) add annoying DRM to your software.

  • Simply ignore it. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IGnatius T Foobar (4328) on Saturday June 16 2007, @04:51PM (#19535599) Homepage Journal
    Seriously, who's going to sue who over this? Ignore the differences between v2 and v3 and mix it up at will. In the extremely unlikely event that someone complains, call it a "bundle" and let the licenses exist on their own.

    Pedantry has no place in this kind of thing.

    • Holy cow, I flipped out for a minute when I saw this. My dander went up and I felt the urge to fight for freedom everywhere and punish the blasphemer. Ignore the license? What the heck? How evil! How horrid! Breaking the license is a capital offense!

      In my zeal to fight for the common good I had to consider for a moment who might be hurt and then my dander wilted. I have never personally known anyone who would be offended if their GPL2 code was used in a project by someone trying to use a slightly different license. Not one. I can't rule out the possibility but in the absolute worse case scenario you get a nasty letter that says "stop misusing my code" and you pull it and ask someone else to fill in the blank.

      Back to the bat cave Robin, there is no evil here.

      • I can tell you two people who would be very annoyed if their GPL v2 code got used in a GPL v3 project. One is me, not that important, the other is Linus Torvalds, much more important.

        I'm sticking with GPL v2 only on my projects, although I've been careful to keep in contact with people who have submitted code, so we can change to GPL v3 if we decide we like the final version.
        • why not just do a GPLv2 or later why you still have contact?
          • Because the way the GPL v3 is forming at the moment, I and a few other writers don't agree with it. There is a slim possibility some day someone might want to 'tivo' some of our code, and we want to allow that.
    • In the extremely unlikely event that someone complains, call it a "bundle" and let the licenses exist on their own.

      Cool, I'll just ship my proprietary code with GPL code, and if someone complains I'll call it a "bundle" and let the licenses exist on their own, GPL license for the GPL code and "(c) All rights reserved" for mine. Oh wait, that's not how the GPL works? Unless there's the "and later" clause, GPLv3 has absolutely nothing to do with GPLv2 and vice versa. It's completely different licenses as far
  • From the referenced page: "Fortunately, license incompatibility only matters when you want to link, merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program."

    SO what about libraries that have been released under the GPL rather than the LGPL? Libraries are not "programs" but they are always, no exception, "linked, merged, or combined". What happens then?

  • Be careful and keep your options open. (Score:3, Informative)

    by PAjamian (679137) on Saturday June 16 2007, @08:35PM (#19537013)

    Here's the problems you will face. If you license under GPL version 2 or later then you can't incorporate code that is licensed under version 3 (but not version 2) into your project (others here seem to imply that you can) until you move up to version 3 yourself. Basically you need to think of it this way, in order to use other people's code in your project your license has to be a subset of their license. In order for others to use your code their license has to be a subset of yours. Here is what I would recommend:

    • License your project as a whole (and all included files) under GPL version 2 or later for now.
    • Continue to License under GPL 2 or later until you need to incorporate code that is licensed under GPL version 3.
    • When you need to include code licensed under GPL 3 or later (try to avoid any code licensed under GPL 3 only) then you can relicense your project as a whole under GPL version 3 or later, but keep most of the individual files licensed under GPL 2 or later. Only those files that include the code that was licensed under GPL 3 or later need to have their license headers changed.
    • If you need to include code licensed under GPL 2 only, then contact the authors and ask for permission to relicense that specific code under GPL 2 or later, most (but not all) will happily give you permission to do that. Barring that you will have to find another source of the code or write it yourself.
    • You can, of course link to libraries licensed under the LGPL, and include code licensed under BSD (as long as you comply with the attribution clause). As of GPL 3 you can also include code licensed under the Apache license, plus there are several licenses (such as the perl license) that are actually dual licenses of GPL plus some other license and code from those can be used freely under the GPL (watch out for what versions they specify). Have a look at the Free Software Foundation License Compatibility Page [gnu.org] for more details on lots of licenses and their compatibility to the GPL.
    • Watch out for version numbers. If a program specifies that it is licensed under the GPL (without any version number) then it can be used under any version of the GPL. If a program specifies that it is licensed under GPL Version 2 (or some other specific version number) then you can only use the code under that specific version of the GPL. Most programs will specify version 2 or later (and many will soon change to version 3 or later) which means that you can use the code under that version or (at your option) any later version.

    As for allowing others to use your code, you have some options with that as well:

    • You can dual license, or multi-license specific files in your project so that they are compatible with other licenses you want them to be usable with, just don't forget to remove the other licenses from any files that you include someone else's GPL code in.
    • You can give explicit permission to others to license under other licenses of your choice when they write you and ask, just make sure that you specify which parts of the code they can only use under the GPL (and which versions) due to it not being your code.

    I think this about as comprehensive of a guide as I can give you. I'm not a lawyer or a representative of the Free Software Foundation and my statements above are just opinion and not to be taken as legal advice. I just know what I know and am passing that knowledge on.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cyclop (780354)

      Thanks for advice. Just a thing is obscure:

      You can dual license, or multi-license specific files in your project so that they are compatible with other licenses you want them to be usable with, just don't forget to remove the other licenses from any files that you include someone else's GPL code in.

      For what reason should I remove the other licenses from files where I include other GPL code? If it's N-licensed, and one of these licenses is GPL, technically I'm merging GPL code with GPL code, so where'

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jamie Lokier (104820)
        I'll explain with an example.

        Let's say your file says the equivalent of "You may use this file under the terms of the GPL (v2 or later), LGPL or MPL, at your option". (Mozilla source is triple-licensed like this, I believe).

        Then you want to add code from somebody else's project to your file. Their file says "You may use this file under the terms of the GPL v2".

        When you add their code to your file, if you don't change the licensing at the start of your file, and you publish the new version, you are telling

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by kimvette (919543)
      I'll take the bait. . .

      Most cameras are mass storage devices. If you can't get them to work with Linux, I do not think the problem is Linux or the computer or the camera.

      Or did you mean a webcam? That isn't a problem either. See http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39 291 [theinquirer.net]
      • How was that flamebait? Please explain. I was addressing a (most likely troll) person trying to spread Linux FUD that the solution is perfectly simple. Most cameras just work. If that's flamebait, then I don't know what the hell to tell you.

      • I thought of the standard clause but it always puzzled me. Who chooses what licence is actually in use? What does "any later version" mean? What if someone breaks only one of the multiple versions of the license? Let's say, if someone TiVO-izes my "GPLv2 or any later" code, that's perfectly fine for me (that thinks GPLv2 is mostly fine), but that could be NOT fine at all for some contributor. What happens in this case?

        • Re:GPL 2 or later (Score:4, Informative)

          by codemachine (245871) on Saturday June 16 2007, @04:27PM (#19535435)
          I believe the person receiving the code gets to choose which version applies. So if they wish to TiVo-ize it, they will opt to accept the terms of the GPLv2 license instead of the GPLv3 license.
        • Your contributors have to also license their code under "GPLv2 or any later version" in order for you to honestly say that your code is under "GPLv2 or any later version".

          "GPLv2 or any later version"means that the author intends to allow the licensee to take advantage of any additional freedoms added in future versions of the GPL. Since the licensee may choose whatever version of the license is most favorable to the freedoms he wants to use, it is not possible to force additional restrictions on the license
    • It is a fact that you will not be able to mix code distributed under GPLv2 without the "or later version" option and code licensed under GPLv3 in the same program. How much of a problem this turns out to be in practice is as yet unknown. However, it is not misinformation to point out that a real issue may exist.
      • I think the divide will become much greater once the GPLv3 is released. Many projects that are currently GPLv2 or higher, will try to be converted to GPLv3 only by idealists and zealots through adding GPLv3-only code, which effectively makes the software as a whole GPLv3. Then a countermovement that want the projects to continue to be GPLv2 licensed will say "screw this, we might have gone willingly but you're not going to force us to go GPLv3" and remove the "and later" from future releases, closing off th
    • Your post makes no sense. If you want to link to a GPLv2 library and distribute it, you must license the work as a whole including your work under the GPLv2 license (or compatible). The GPLv2 explicitly says that you can not impose any additional restrictions, which is what you're talking about. MySQL owns the copyright to all their code and can relicense it as they please, which makes the comparison irrelevant. And your suggestion to fork the library would not change the license or the terms, so it's plain

    • RTFL (Score:2, Informative)

      by tepples (727027)

      You could do GPLv2 and add a clause to make it compatible with GPLv3. I'm not sure what that clause would say, but I think you can do that.

      The wording suggested by the FSF for such a clause has been at the bottom of GPLv2 [gnu.org] for years:

      This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You only have to release the source code to the kernel changes if you plan to distribute the modifications. The GPL's restrictions only apply to distributors. Private use of the software, including changes to the source code, is completely unrestricted. The GPL only applies if you intend to release those modifications to the world. Likewise, the GPL does not say that gcc can only compile code released under the GPL. The license only means that gcc itself is under the GPL, meaning that ordinary use of t

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.