Using gnu gpl license

You can distribute pre-compiled binaries as well, if you like, but the primary form of software is source and that's what you get and give. Obviously, this has very little impact on whether a person or company can use the source code they have obtained obtain, if any. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.

See this page for more information, it is written by same people that wrote GPL. GPL software can be used anywhere, without restrictions. In fact, the FSF maintainers of the GPL have harsh words for licenses that try to restrict use of the software in any way.

GPL software can also be modified without restrictions, as long as the modified software is kept private. If you intend to use the GPL'd software strictly within the company, you can make whatever changes you want. What the GPL controls is distribution of modified software. If you want to turn your modified software into a product, then you have to release the source. There are no other restrictions: you can even charge for the software, as long as the source is available at no additional charge to anyone who has bought a license.

It does not have to be made available to anyone who hasn't bought a license. It is possible to do something like this, by releasing the software under two different licenses, but QGIS doesn't do that. This is called "dual licensing".

Usually when a project does this, it releases the software under the GPL or something very like it for free, but people can pay to get an alternate license with different terms. QGIS does seem to offer a "sponsorship program", as well as sales for commercial support, but these aren't alternate licenses, and they are never compulsory. You don't have to become a sponsor or buy commercial support to use the software, even if you are a corporation. Being a sponsor doesn't give you any additional rights, nor does it impose any additional restrictions; the same goes for buying commercial support.

Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Can GPL licenced software be used in corporate environments?

Ask Question. Asked 6 years, 5 months ago. Active 5 years, 1 month ago. Viewed 53k times. Would anyone be able to shed some light on the subject to help clear things up? Improve this question. TsvGis TsvGis 1 1 gold badge 5 5 silver badges 8 8 bronze badges. Iit would be helpful - in order to be able to specifically address those concerns in an answer - to know what they are.

The question can be improved by providing a reasoning for "I am of the understanding that it can be used" — Michael Schumacher. Legal at work formula corporation say stay the heck away from GPL. They do not like GPL 3. There is, in my non-professional opinion, risk for loss of "magic smoke" and profitability and risk of liability for improper function that they don't want engineering to touch it.

If it might ever be customer-facing then GPL is "not no, but heck no! EngrStudent all those companies that run Linux on their web servers seem to have a different opinion of that. Show 4 more comments. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. Tomasz Klim Tomasz Klim 7 7 silver badges 10 10 bronze badges.

Even if you don't make changes, you need to distribute the original unmodified source code along with the binary. This is specific to the GPL. But indeed, " not distributing at all" is also a valid choice. MSalters You don't need to distribute the source code with the binaries, you just need to make it accessible. URL of webserver But as a programmer, that's just pass-by reference versus pass-by-value ; — MSalters. Some corporate environments have really weird business relationships where it gets hard to realize that giving that modified tool to that other person counts as redistribution.

And, IIRC, even if you don't accept the terms of the license , so that technically the software is not under the GPL and you actually don't have any license for it, if it's in your possession you are still allowed to use it but not modify it. Because the GPL is purely a copyright license, and using software is not something covered by copyright law; modification and distribution are.

Show 5 more comments. Often, a propretary software license will further restrict the number of computers inside your company that it may simultaneously be installed on Let's look at some of the more common objections to free software you may find in a corporate environment: If it is free software, I will not receive any support. Community Bot 1. Free Radical Free Radical 8, 2 2 gold badges 22 22 silver badges 58 58 bronze badges.

JAB For a start, that's about distribution , not use. Their stance is that purely internal use within company premises is not distribution as discussed in the GNU GPL, and thus not subject to the requirement of also making available the source code. See the linked FAQ entry for details. The OP didn't ask what objections someone might have to using OSS in a corporate environment; just if it were allowed for GPL software which, of course, it obviously is.

It might be better to ask these as separate questions and let them all get thorough answers, then perhaps make a meta post linking all of them if such is desired. Show 8 more comments. From GPLv3 : 9.

Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies. Nevertheless, each party is explicitly granted permission to run the code by GPLv3: 2. Basic Permissions. This is because the GPL includes some ambiguous parts that may be in clear violation to the OpenSource rules. There are still some people that interpret the GPL in a way that is incompatible to the OpenSource definition, so be careful with claims about the GPL that are too restrictive. Information is provided on an as-is basis. For a legal consultation, please contact your legal advisor.

Rami Sass. Free Trial Log In. The complete guide to Open Source Licenses Contents hide. What is copyleft? What are the GPL license terms and conditions? Is GPL enforceable? Is GPL safe? Does the GPL license require the author to release the modified source code?

Can you mix GPL license with other licenses? What does the LGPL cover? What does the AGPL cover? Subscribe to Our Blog. The compromise to these opposing positions was the development of a new, separate license: the AGPL. Those who did not could use the new GPL v. For a significant period of time after the AGPL was released, very few software programs utilized this license.

That is beginning to change. On a widely known website for open source projects, SourceForge. There were software packages that were licensed under the AGPL. While these numbers pale in comparison to other open source licenses,[6] the use of AGPL is prevalent enough that lawyers who are faced with software issues from time to time have some risk that they will be faced with the AGPL in their practices.

Section 13 provides in part bracketed language is commentary of this author :. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program [i. In other words, if one allows software licensed under the AGPL to be accessed over the Internet as a service, without distributing a copy of it to anyone, the source code of the software must be offered to those who access the functionality.

First, the use of software subject to the AGPL can negatively impact a business when its IT professionals ignore or blithely discount the importance of the actual terms of the open source licenses for the technology they use. Not all companies have procedures and processes in place to vet computer code before it is used. When AGPL code is used as a part of a software program that is intended by the business to be proprietary, the consequences can be very negative to the business.

This is a potential problem especially in the context of an acquisition. The absence of appropriate diligence to identify whether AGPL code is used can be a career limiting move for any attorney or business development person tasked with due diligence.