Can i use gpl icon in commercial software

Thanks for the clarification. Fortunately the code is completely running on the back-end no Javascript so I do not have that problem. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. Featured on Meta. New post summary designs on greatest hits now, everywhere else eventually. Open Source is leaving beta. Related 4. Hot Network Questions.

Tell your employees not to distribute the software. So if they do, they are committing copyright infringement, not you. If you distribute the software with source code then you have fulfilled all your obligations. Nobody can ask you for anything. If you distribute the software with a promise to deliver the source code, anyone in the world can ask for the source code. If you use GPL code at runtime, you gotta give out the source. If you give out a prebuilt developer environment docker image, etc , that counts as distributing and you have to make all the gpl-using code also open source We can force such rules in the jungle, but in real life juridical of country or state it depends on who, whom, when and what.

GPL program is infecting and infected the parent and the child non GPL process proprietary and even other open source license from the perspective of law. No problem exists when you compile a distributed GPL source as act individual person, org, company.

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. Asked 10 years, 11 months ago. Active 6 months ago. Viewed k times. Can I redistribute my framework with GeSHi? Improve this question. Stevoisiak 1, 1 1 gold badge 10 10 silver badges 20 20 bronze badges.

Petah Petah 3, 3 3 gold badges 17 17 silver badges 20 20 bronze badges. Just curious, what does distribute mean in this case? If the program in question were, say, firmware in an appliance where it cannot be touched by anyone but the company that sells the appliance, is that "distribution"? Yes the is distribution. That's why you find things like ADSL routers where the source code is has to be available for download.

Reputable suppliers make the source available because the license conditions require it of them. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. To this, Larry replied:.

In any case, for more granular combinations, such as taking a C or Java source file using GPL and a source file from a non-GPL license and using them both in a larger program, we don't have to rely on Rosen's interpretation. GPLv3 adds the "section 7 exception" to attempt to make this clear. The FSF has stated explicitly that Apache 2.

I asked Apache if they could confirm. It reads, in part from GPLv3 draft 4 :. Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions.

The bottom line is that anyone can now use Apache code inside a program that, overall, is licensed under GPLv3. Note that the reverse is not true.

Justin writes:. The hypothetical collective combined work will be controlled under the terms of the GPLv3 - the code from Apache isn't relicensed per se as the ALv2 still applies to our code.

The statement about compatibility from the FSF is that the GPLv3 can incorporate code that is licensed under the ALv2 and still have the larger combined work redistributed under the terms of the GPLv3. Jim Jagielski agrees. Justin replied:. No, you are correct - you wouldn't have the right to relicense it in the sense of removing our ALv2 license and slapping on your own license.

However, the legal reasoning here is that the entire collective work i. The good news is that this works with any license deemed "compatible" with GPL, not just Apache. Presumably the list will be updated for GPLv3 once it's finalized. As attorney Lawrence Rosen notes in his essay, this is a complicated issue and different people can have different interpretations.

That's OK, he says:. I believe GPLv3 is a good license that many of us can live with, but it will never be the only license that serves the free and open source community. Owners of software have other good licenses to choose from that will meet their own philosophical and business goals.