using GPL licenced code commercially

[Skgoa]

I tried to research this, but got conflicting answers:
Let's assume I have code that was released under GPL. I would like to use that in a commercial project I am working on. Do I have to release my whole project's source code under GPL, too? Or only the parts of the importet code that I modified? Or not at all?

[Dwelf]

If you integrate the GPL code into your own project in any significant manner then you release the code in any form to the public you must release or offer to release the source for that program. The code release as far as I can tell is an all or nothing thing. The version of GPL will be your problem here GPL2 should allow you to release the product not under GPL assuming the GPL code makes up a small portion of the program. GPL3 does not.

Linking to a library that is GPL has a pretty mixed set of views but if you take the spirit of it your not supposed to do that either. If your lucky the code you want to use is also available under LGPL and you should be ok to link to it.

In general if you can find a non GPL alternative for use with a comercial application

I am not a lawyer so depending on the size of this work you may want to consult one.

[Beowulf]

I do believe that if you partition the code such that you have two separate executables, with all the GPL code residing in one, then you can keep the code for the other exe confidential. I've seen this dodge used successfully. The GPL'd exe does have to successfully compile, of course.

I am not a lawyer

[rapidsquirrel]

From what I understand (it's been a while since I've read the GPL license), if you use GPL code in your own code, your code has to be licensed under GPL for you to distribute it. If you link to libraries, then you must provide the source code for those libraries (or provide links to where one can find the source code for them).

I'll admit though this is from my reading of the GPLv2 and I have yet to read the GPLv3. Have you read the related GPL version for the code you are going to incorporated? There shouldn't be anything that will stop you using the code commercially, just extra requirements.

My advice would be to read the GNU website. The GPL is written in plain English and they do their best to attempt to answer any and all questions. If you still aren't sure, as dwelf said, consult a lawyer.

[Sarevok]

From what I understand if you are not statically linking it does not count as a derived work.

[phongn]

I tried to research this, but got conflicting answers:
Let's assume I have code that was released under GPL. I would like to use that in a commercial project I am working on. Do I have to release my whole project's source code under GPL, too? Or only the parts of the importet code that I modified? Or not at all?

In addition to all the above advice - talk to a lawyer since money appears to be involved.

[phongn]

My rule of thumb is to say "no" to almost all open source code for commercial projects (and to many open source projects too. I like the GPL, but it comes at a price. And the BSD license just fucking sucks).

Using BSD-licensed (or, for that matter, Apache-licensed) code is pretty trivial, though? You just have to include the license note somewhere.

[Dwelf]

The BSD style licenses are probably the most developer friendly open source licenses available. That particular clause is almost trivial to meet. Assuming zipping the exe with a txt file is too complicated, just have it write the license to disk next to the executable when run that should tick that box.

Your issues with being told what to do aside, the requirement to convey the license is there to prevent someone taking your open source project calling it their own and selling it which is just plain dishonest. The clause gives the author a legal standing to stop that behavior. Considering that most open source project are for fun and resume padding the attribution is pretty much the point of the code.

[Dwelf]

Proprietary licenses are easily better; they actually put cash in developer's pockets.

I get that you like them but I'm going to disagree with you that proprietry licenses are by default better. I don't really feel like having a debate on the pros and cons of various licenses so I'm going to leave it at that.

The clause gives the author a legal standing to stop that behavior.

Who did much of the original work into Webkit? And that was LGPL too.

I have no idea where you are trying to go with this.

[phongn]

The open source license did jack and shit to to stop Apple and Google from taking the khtml code, calling it their own product, and selling it.

But permissive licenses like BSD and Apache aren't supposed to do that! They're just for attribution's sake since there are plenty of dicks who wouldn't put something in an About dialogue box or other license document.

[Pu-239]

From what I understand if you are not statically linking it does not count as a derived work.

That's the LGPL. For the regular GPL, dynamic linking to a GPL library still counts as a derived work.