   GNU tools and selling closed source software?
  Hi,I''ve been following the SCO vs Linux arguement on Groklaw and the following comment was made:Authored by: valdis on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 09:35 AM ESTFirst off, there''s nothing illegal about using GNU Make to control your software builds, or using the gcc compiler. It''s slimy, but not illegal.A certain amount of tap dancing needs to be done if you''re using the GNU c++ compiler, as that will generate references to routines in libstdc++, which is GPL and not LGPL. As a result, although it''s possible to build closed source C programs that link against glibc (which is LGPL), it''s hard to build closed source C++ programs with the GNU toolchain."Mere aggregation" - it''s perfectly OK to ship a CD that contains a bunch of tools, and throwing gzip in there as well just because it''s mind-bogglingly useful, as long as you remember to comply with the GPL requirements for making source available (usually, parking a copy of the source .tar.gz file off in the corner of the CD suffices).Another thing that''s not OK is if you step over the "mere aggregation" bounds - if some of that code that you ship actually uses the gzip tools, then you have to go back and deal with the fact that your code just became GPL as well... Does anyone have a view/opinion on compiling (and selling) indie software with gnu c++ (eg MinGW)?   Turn Left 100m..........YES! That left back there! 
  I am not a lawyer, and I am not an expert in compilers or even c++ coding against libraries.Legally, the test is if your program will not run without GNU''s libstdc++ [or any other GPLed library] it must be GPLed as well.  ;  I''m not familiar with the history of the libstdc++ license, but the bolded text is not accurate with regards to the current release of libstdc++. (Or any recent versions either.) See  this page regarding the use of libstdc++ in proprietary applications. ;  Thanks for that! [big sign of relief]I like the the open source movement, but I''m still trying to work out how to be true to it and still make some money Thanks Stephenquote:Original post by SiCrane  I''m not familiar with the history of the libstdc++ license, but the bolded text is not accurate with regards to the current release of libstdc++. (Or any recent versions either.) See  this page regarding the use of libstdc++ in proprietary applications.    Turn Left 100m..........YES! That left back there! ;  Look into guerilla marketing.  There's a bunch of books on it, and it really fits with GNU software.You have to read RMS's GNU Manifesto.  You have to.  "How can I make money without charging money?"  There is an answer:  Charge money.  The GNU Manifesto is not against charging money for your services.  I urge you to research the issue and take an interest in it.  It's something that you have to work with, and will have to for the rest of your career.  Richard Stallman's numerous interviews are very educational, so don't hold back from those.You have to realize something:  GNU is a call for change in an industry.  It didn't happen without reason, and it is  a very legal and very controversial issue.  The Constitution allows patents so as to advance invention.  Stallman agrees with the Constitution on this issue, but feels that patents are being greatly misused in the area of software.  (Research the issue and find out why.  You may understand.)  Stallman has a vision of the industry that you may share, now or in the future.  As with so many things, it's all about working and doing your part to make the world a better place.  That's idea.  But if you have questions -- EXCELLENT!!!  You can find the answers.(!)For the time being, whenever software is GPL'ed, it says so loud and clear.  This doesn't really have    to be so, and in the next few years, you could try to fizzle this out if you felt the need for it.(!)  This statement is erred, and corrected below.  Now to answer the question of making money:  You have to know how to run a business, and this entails, again, a vision of a better world.  You have to know what to do with the money you make, because it's by no means a two-layered thing.  Warren Buffett's first business involved putting pinball machines in businesses, building up the money from that, and using that money to put another pinball machine in another business.  This is a system for creating passive money, and passive money is really something you want.You have to be smart, and to be smart, you have to study.  There are numerous books on guerilla marketing which you may want to look into.  Robert Kiyosaki's books are great (and yes, everyone will recommend them if you ask where to start with a business).  A less obvious choice would be "Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare", a book on war that gives a stimulating interest in tactics and strategy on which you can go to war for a winning product.Be smart.  Because to be stupid in one way is to be stupid in three.   EDIT: Looking back on your post, you can do it -- many do -- but isn't it a matter of integrity?  If I wereto do so, I would donate some of the proceeds to the makers of the tools which I used, and consider having the program GPL'ed in the future.==================Benjamin Heath==================   [edited by - Benjamin Heath on February 18, 2004 3:33:36 AM] [edited by - Benjamin Heath on February 18, 2004 3:48:57 AM] [edited by - Benjamin Heath on February 18, 2004 12:20:01 AM];  The GPL licenses apply to the distribution of software. Not the use of GPL licensed software. So you can use tools like gcc for anything you want, making commercial closed-source software, it doesn''t matter. GPL licenses try to give you freedom.This is different from Open Source software, which often have very restricting licenses even on the use. Some say that you have to credit them in your documentation, others just blatantly allow you only to use them for noncommercial use and forbid commercial use.  Often open source only allows you to read the source, compile your own version, but forbids you to release any binaries based on modified source.If you make a GNU tool available for download, you have to make the source available for download as well. If you use GPL source in your software, you have to release the whole thing as free software with a GPL license.This is inconvenient, say you use an open source sound library like fmod and you link that with your code, you don''t want to be obliged to open your source code. For this there is the LGPL (library or lesser GPL) that allows you to use LGPL source to compile that with your software, and then you are only obliged to offer the source of that library only.If a GCC++ libary gets linked statically with your executable on either Linux or Windows (in the executable or .EXE/.DLL) then this is a problem. If libstdc++ is indeed GPL and not LGPL then you cannot use GNU STD in C++ if you want to release your software (because it would force you to make your software GPL too).PS. BlendedRacer, Richard Stallman (the FSF/GNU guy) gets offended whenever you mix GPL and Open Source. They are very different. ;  Hi,Thanks for the very informative replies.  Ive started some of the research with the Manifesto and Gnu''s take on Free vs Open Source.I wonder however how well the GNU philosophy fits with games where the resources are as important as the actual source code.  An example would be a platform games with 50 levels.  Releasing the source code won''t help much if the 50 levels supplied with the bought version are not released with the source. Further to that, what about the image files, audio files etc, that are required by the game.  I get the impression that this is the open source approach, whereas the GNU approach would be either to have two complete downloads:1) Here is the LGPL Download - please purchase for $15.002) Here is the Free download as required by GNU.or a single download for free and a plead for a donation.I can''t really see how either will help pay for my kids education Cheers Stephen Turn Left 100m..........YES! That left back there! ;quote:Original post by BlendedRacer  ...I wonder however how well the GNU philosophy fits with games where the resources are as important as the actual source code...I think this is the exact reason why the Quake 2 and Wolfstein:Enemey Territory were released GPL.  The code is good, but the resources make a big difference in a game.;quote:Original post by BlendedRacer   Hi,Thanks for the very informative replies.  Ive started some of the research with the Manifesto and Gnu's take on Free vs Open Source.I wonder however how well the GNU philosophy fits with games where the resources are as important as the actual source code.  An example would be a platform games with 50 levels.  Releasing the source code won't help much if the 50 levels supplied with the bought version are not released with the source. Further to that, what about the image files, audio files etc, that are required by the game.  I get the impression that this is the open source approach, whereas the GNU approach would be either to have two complete downloads:1) Here is the LGPL Download - please purchase for $15.002) Here is the Free download as required by GNU.or a single download for free and a plead for a donation.I can't really see how either will help pay for my kids education Cheers Stephen Turn Left 100m..........YES! That left back there!   Stallman has spoken on this issue as well.  I read an interview in which he made clear that the engine is just software.  There is no reason that this shouldn't be Free Software.  (Free as in "freedom of speech".)  But he compares the data files to a novel, a medium with very different properties from software.  As an author of this novel, you have the rights to it.  (... where's the link to that interview? ...)EDIT: look here [edited by - Benjamin Heath on February 18, 2004 11:41:08 PM];quote:Original post by BlendedRacer   I get the impression that this is the open source approach, whereas the GNU approach would be either to have two complete downloads:1) Here is the LGPL Download - please purchase for $15.002) Here is the Free download as required by GNU.No. #1 is enough. The requirements are basically that a) You provide the source at no extra   charge to those you distribute your application to. (If I don't buy the app, I have no rights to the code)b) You allow modification, redistribution, etc under the same license.And you don't have to make the art, levels, etc freely available/reusable either. Indeed the code isn't as useful on its own, but that's all your customers get rights to.   [edited by - Fruny on February 18, 2004 11:58:13 PM]