si le code source complet est librement accessible l'entreprise ne gagnera pas un sou. donc elle ne le fera pas.
Si c'est pour "completer" un autre logiciel , je ne vois pas ou est le pb : avec la GPL tu est en droit de demander des royalties.
Un exemple reel serait plutot que cette entreprise fasse payer le beau package , proc d'install , support, mise a jour de securité, etc
Mais ca c'est normal , c'est autant sinon plus de boulot que pour faire le logiciel lui meme.
C'est ce qui se passe avec wine et les logiciels de Codeweaver (http://www.codeweavers.com/(...)) . On ne paye Codeweaver que parce qu'il apporte une plus value par rapport a wine seul.
Pour bien comprendre la GPL, un mot de Eban Mogden , le juriste de la FSF:
"Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees,
it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor
doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised
me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says
'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.'
The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses,
or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must
show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously
assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also
assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL.
The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary
code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong.
There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of
infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to,
under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution,
and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found to have
wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in
damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from
distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make
wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits. "
[^] # Re: GPL
Posté par kesako . En réponse au message Création d'un logiciel et licences possibles. Évalué à 2.
Si c'est pour "completer" un autre logiciel , je ne vois pas ou est le pb : avec la GPL tu est en droit de demander des royalties.
Un exemple reel serait plutot que cette entreprise fasse payer le beau package , proc d'install , support, mise a jour de securité, etc
Mais ca c'est normal , c'est autant sinon plus de boulot que pour faire le logiciel lui meme.
C'est ce qui se passe avec wine et les logiciels de Codeweaver (http://www.codeweavers.com/(...)) . On ne paye Codeweaver que parce qu'il apporte une plus value par rapport a wine seul.
Pour bien comprendre la GPL, un mot de Eban Mogden , le juriste de la FSF:
"Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees,
it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor
doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised
me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says
'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.'
The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses,
or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must
show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously
assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also
assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL.
The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary
code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong.
There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of
infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to,
under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution,
and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found to have
wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in
damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from
distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make
wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits. "