[aplusdev] Non-GPL A+?

[Alexander Skomorokhov]

Derek,

> Alexander Skomorokhov said:
> > Dan,
> >   Is A+ available under a parallel, non-GPL commercial license
> >   that would allow it to be used/embedded in non-open source
> >   products? Perhaps something similar to MySQL's commercial
> >   license?
The above was NOT said by Alexander Skomorokhov. It is a quote from the
original message I tried to reply.

> You can sell GPL software[1], so I am not sure how it is non-commerical,
> but I suppose that is splitting hairs.
Yes, sure.

> >   GPL license is about A+ itself. If you take A+ source code and modify
> > something there then this modification must be published under GPL.
>
> Bzzzt.  Wrong answer.  You must only publish your changes under the GPL if
> you distribute them.  If I download A+ and modify it to my hearts content
> as long as I do not distribute this modified version to others, I am under
> no obligation. [2]
My answer was NOT wrong. I just answered the _other_ question.
About use A+ in commercial products and services, which must be distributed
to customers. So, my answer to Dan was that he _may_ sell system
written in A+, do not publish his A+ code (scripts) under GPL and include
A+ distribution in his products.

> > But if you use A+ as a programming language (and a platform to
> >   develop your applications) then these programs and applications
> >   may be proprietary. And you may use GPLed A+ in combination
> >    with some proprietary products, let say MatLab.
>
> If you write a program in A+, but don't modify A+ itself, certainly you
> could license your program under whatever you like assuming there is no
> "linkage" or inclusion of A+ code in the resulting program.[3][4]
Very good. Looks like I understood the things correctly.

> >   As integrators of custom trading solutions, we cannot use
> >   GPL licensed software because of potential license conflicts
> >   with other software packages we integrate in our systems.
> >   Let say I develop "close" source commercial system using commercial
> > version of Dyalog APL. Most code is in APL, but I use MySQL as a
> > database engine (and communicate to APL via ODBC) and use R to
> >   perform some statistic calculations. In my (solid:-) understanding
> > until I do not touch source code of MySQL and R (just use them as is)
> > I am in good shape. And my commercial code written in Dyalog APL
> >    remains close and protected.
>
> If you wanted to modify MySQL and R you could do this with no worries as
> long as you didn't "distribute" the resulting program. [2]  Furthermore, I
> don't see how any of your Dyalog APL code would be at risk.  Only the
> resulting program would be at risk.  The authors of MySQL and R could tell
> you that you have two choices.
We are speaking of distributing systems to the customers and taking money
from them.

> 1. Make your program licensed under something GPL compatiable.
> 2. Stop using MySQL and R.
>
> They can not "force" you to do #1 as far as I know.  They can force you to
> do #2 if you don't do #1.
I agree if I write something in C and took parts of R or MySQL. But,
if I write (in any language, especially in APL) and _just use_ R, MySQL to
call them from my system (I may even do NOT have source code of R and MySQL,
only binaries), then they can NOT ask me to GPL my own code.
My answer to Dan was that he shouldn't worry about "potential license
conflicts
with other software packages we integrate in our systems" and look for
nan-GPL-A.
Do you agree?

> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
> [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
> [3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF
> [4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
Thanks for the interesting links.

Regards,
Sasha.