What License Is Granite Actually Under?

I'm not sure, but I do think the important one is the one written in the file.

COPYING suggests that Granite is GPLv3:
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~elementary-pantheon/granite/granite/view/head:/COPYING

Yes however the files and the Launchpad dashboard remain LGPL in most
cases. This needs to be cleared up.

If the License is GPL3 then that means granite cannot be used in
proprietary or for sale software. That is extremely harmful in my opinion
to elementary OS.

If Granite was LGPL3 then they could have an AppStore of its own and
elementary OS could benefit from the sale of proprietary apps.

But again this needs to be cleared up.

On Friday, January 18, 2013, Y Lin wrote:

> Your question #218277 on Granite changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/granite/+question/218277
>
> Y Lin proposed the following answer:
> COPYING suggests that Granite is GPLv3:
>
> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~elementary-pantheon/granite/granite/view/head:/COPYING
>
> --
> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> know that it is solved:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/granite/+question/218277/+confirm?answer_id=1
>
> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> following page to enter your feedback:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/granite/+question/218277
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

--
*------------------------------**------------------------------**
Chris Timberlake*
Technical Architect
Phone: 515-707-5109
<email address hidden>

I support making all libraries and applications that come default, or are required for the eOS team to accept an application to be LGPL. This makes more sense, and allows for people to release paid for applications. Requiring everyone to follow the GPL would be silly, in that there could never be official commercial development using the eOS standards.

For clarification, paid or non-paid applications have nothing to do with GPL. You can *commercially* release any of your GPL-ed products. Also, like the GPL, the LGPL does *not* allow one to make a product proprietary, just allow proprietary software to *link* to free (not about price) software. The following statements are not true:

"If the License is GPL3 then that means granite cannot be used in
proprietary or for sale software. That is extremely harmful in my opinion
to elementary OS."

"This makes more sense, and allows for people to release paid for applications"

Mr. Nguyen, That is incorrect. There are 2 forms of Commercial Applications. Those inside the Commercial Workspace, and those as a Commercial Product. GPL'd Applications CAN be used in a Commercial Workspace and there is nothing in the license that PROHIBITS Software as a Commercial Product. However in Stallman's own words the GPL's Copyleft is there to ensure there is no Proprietary software.

The GPL FORCES the release of all source-code in an application linked with other GPL Code. It is also very explicit in ensuring the code comes with all required data to work. This means there is no form of piracy prevention. You cannot safe-guard the application from being pirated. This means that GPL software as a Commercial Product is a pipe-dream.

LGPL FORCES you to release the source-code of the linked library, any deviations from said library, and any changes to said library. It DOES NOT force you to release the source-code of your Application to the public.

This very issue has been covered time and time again.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1114045/gpl-and-lgpl-open-source-licensing-restrictions

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-gpl-and-lgpl/

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/152520/the-decisive-difference-between-lgpl-and-agpl

Dear Digi,

I might misunderstand you, so please correct me if you think I do.

I don't think pirating a GPL-ed application would be an appropriate term. Let's take Red Hat as an example of commercializing the GPL:

* Red Hat makes money buy selling subscriptions. Users have to pay to:
  - Obtain RHEL in binary form, as well as its source code and repositories, including non-free components like Red Hat logos and trademarks, ...
  - Access and used Red Hat's tools, both open and closed ones.

* Outside its business, Red Hat release its free (as in FOSS) source code (with no binary) to the community, but with very different form compared to subscribed users:
  - Source code for subscribed users are provided in clean, readable, hackable, documented patches.
  - Source code for non-subscribed users are provided in obfuscated, undocumented chunks, including its proprietary components, which multiplies the effort to hack and "pirate".

* CentOS is a re-built binary form of RHEL with all Red Hat's proprietary components removed. The quality of CentOS and RHEL is difficult to compared (althought in my experience, RHEL's builds are much better), but obviously CentOS users have to trade-off.

Business models vary though, but based-on the real case of Red Hat (and other companies as well), I think it's perfectly possible to commercialize GPL products with great benefits.

You're right about the advantages of the LGPL over the GPL in the situation where the source code of library has to be released but not the source code of the application linking against it. My apologies for not being thoughtful enough :-(. Thank you.

--
Duong

Duong, What you're referring too is "Software as a Service" or SaaS. This is where the application is GPL and "open" for anyone to modify. The company making the code actually makes money on selling Support and Assistance with the software as opposed to selling the product itself.

For a company like RedHat or CentOS; it works great. They offer the software that big companies need and use then offer support when necessary and charge for said support. RedHat, CentOS and other OS or Distro's can do this because the Distro is huge and is a necessity for many companies. Their software is MASSIVE.

However, the game changes when we're talking about a single product. Because now that single product is all a team has. That is their money maker. You have to ask yourself, if this small company makes money on support contracts for this small product. Now, the company has no reason to fix or make the software good.

    1. Since the company makes money on support. It actually benefit them to not fix bugs or create bugs so the users of the software have to pay to fix it.

    2. Since the company makes money on consulting, it benefits the company to not release a completed software. They can expect others to pay them to add in features that are wanted, or they can release software that is missing key features, and expect others to pay for it.

    3. It enables the company to release a crappy product and be paid to make it better.

Lets take Jigoshop for example. It's an eCommerce plugin to wordpress. It's under GPL. So they release their eCommerce plugin to wordpress without key features such as package tracking, shipping calculation, and payment gateways. Then they turn around and charge anywhere from 20$USD to 100$USD per added feature.

That's aggravating because you just installed this eCommerce plugin and got your products imported and find it's missing half the things an eCommerce solution should do. This is actually done on purpose.

Most users would rather spend 100$ on the software up front than get it for free and find out they have to spend 50-60$ more.

If I'm getting a product, I want to pay X amount and get a product that's working and is as advertised. Not half a program.

This question was expired because it remained in the 'Open' state without activity for the last 15 days.