Tell me more ×
Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 0 down vote favorite

I'm developing a commercial cms. I'm going to sell this cms. I use jQuery, also I use date and time picker jQuery plugin in my cms, I can say this is just a 1% of my big script, I don't want sell my whole program as GPL because of these two small integrations (jQuery and DateTime picker). Please ask on these questions:

  1. I'm worry about license issue. What is the best way to sell my product(licensing type)?
  2. Is there any way to provide some partial licenses? I mean just add small notification in my license that the jQuery and The DateTime picker is still in GPL, but other part of this CMS has commercial license?
  3. If there isn't any way to sell commercial product as close source with GPL small parts, what is the most strong license for selling my product to keep it safe?

Please sorry for my English

share|improve this question
What do you mean by "safe" and "best?" You cannot piecemeal the GPL in this way; it's all or nothing. – Robert Harvey Dec 5 '12 at 18:31
So do you mean if e.g. XenForo uses jQuery, it should be sold as GPL license forum? – Victor Dec 5 '12 at 18:34
There is no "should be" when it comes to licensing, only that which meets your needs. You "should be" more specific about what you need. We don't know the answers to "best way" or "strong license" or "safe;" you have to be more specific about what you mean by these words. – Robert Harvey Dec 5 '12 at 18:37
1  
He's right. Note though that jQuery (as well as many other related libraries; didn't look up your specific plugin) is not exclusively under the GPL. You can also use it under the MIT license. Do your research please. – delnan Dec 5 '12 at 18:39
Thank you very much for answers. The MIT is good for me, as far as I see if I only use the jQuery with MIT license without any other GPL scripts (e.g. datetime picker), then I can sell my product as close source. Am I right? – Victor Dec 5 '12 at 18:43

closed as not a real question by Robert Harvey, Walter, MainMa, gnat, Tim Post♦ Dec 6 '12 at 14:19

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

IANAL but my understanding is:

If you incorporate GPL licensed things into your software, those pieces must stay licensed under the GPL. The means: you must provide copies of those "modules" to anyone who asks for them. If you modified them, you must provide the modified copies. Finally, you have to include a copy of the GPL for those parts of your application when distributing your application. There is a minor misunderstanding among some people I've talked to that if you use GPL licensed software, your entire application defaults to a GPL license. This is not true.

In your case you have an aggregate work. Aggregate works are covered in section 5 of the GPL-v3:

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

As you can see, the solution to using GPL material in your application is to modularize your application. There are the parts you wrote which you are selling, and they simply rely on other GPL parts -- which you are merely distributing, modified or not. You're not charging for jQuery, you're charging for a CMS that incorporates jQuery.

The other route is a SAAS model. Don't even sell the software but sell the services it provides (and related support for those services). This is, in my opinion, the most popular model currently. In this model, your intelectual property (well business model) is not the software (IP is irrelevant). You write the software, and then you become the best provider of its services to your customers. This is how Github, Bitbucket, etc. work.

share|improve this answer
+1 for aggregate work ...I can never remember the name of the thing – ZJR Dec 5 '12 at 23:59
1  
GPL does not work this way. You can't just modularize it the way you say. If your product will not work with that missing GPL piece you have to license it as GPL. In his case jQuery is an essential part of his product. Not to mention that jQuery dropped the GPL license piece, it's only MIT now. – Andrew Finnell Dec 6 '12 at 0:32
@AndrewFinnell that's not the conclusion I've come to after reading the GPL (it is, in fact, contradictory to exactly the paragraph from section 5 that I've included in my answer) and after taking a class about software licenses. Where are you drawing your conclusion from? – David Cowden Dec 6 '12 at 3:17
"which are not combined with it such as to form a larger" You are forming a larger program. His program cannot survive without the GPL component. None of these conversations really matter because it is up to the courts to decide. I would also look at the GPL creed to have a better understanding of their stance on closed-source software. I would also be careful with the SAAS model. AGPL was written to close that loop. GLPv3 almost closed that loop but in the end did not completely close it. I imagine if there were to be a GPLv4 they will close the SAAS loop. – Andrew Finnell Dec 6 '12 at 15:40
@AndrewFinnell I see where your bias lies (; Yes, you are correct that it is up to the courts. As far as SAAS, Is that not the very model Stallman promotes as a proper way to make money off of software? It is not a loophole in my eyes. In the end though, you operate under the restraint of the license chosen by the author. If there is a "loophole" and the author didn't bother to close it with a stricter license then that's either because the author does not think it's a loophole or the author did not know in which case they can alter the license on their work to their liking. – David Cowden Dec 7 '12 at 19:06

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.