Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » Community » Coffee corner » (Commercial) Upp consulting?!
(Commercial) Upp consulting?! [message #20657] Mon, 30 March 2009 14:23 Go to next message
JoseB is currently offline  JoseB
Messages: 37
Registered: March 2009
Member
Hello all,
As far as i understood, Upp is free for use for both open-source, freeware or commercial applications, right?

If I have a little enterprise. I am new in upp but as it is a really good tool, could i some day give consulting in UPP in my country in a commercial point of view.

I mean, can i organize paid trainning sessions and have paid upp tutorials etc?

Please, explain me if i could made that or not.


Thank you

Jose
Re: (Commercial) Upp consulting?! [message #20658 is a reply to message #20657] Mon, 30 March 2009 15:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mr_ped is currently offline  mr_ped
Messages: 801
Registered: November 2005
Location: Czech Republic - Praha
Experienced Contributor

Basically:
new BSD license (also U++) - you can sell anything, even TheIDE itself, in whatever form (including binary, training, sources)...

GPL - you can sell training/support without limitation. You can sell your own work or the unmodified original work as long as you make sources accessible to customer and as long as the product is under GPL license too. But there's absolutely no restriction on monetary side of thing. (some people in forums have difficulty to understand this... just ignore them)

The problem is not whether you can. The problem is to find customer willing to pay for something what is available for free elsewhere. The training/support is best choice, because that's not available so directly, but if you are skilled merchant who can sell even firefox, you *can* (with sources and under GPL license).
Good luck turning this into profit (I'm not that good personally. Sad ).
Re: (Commercial) Upp consulting?! [message #20659 is a reply to message #20658] Mon, 30 March 2009 15:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JoseB is currently offline  JoseB
Messages: 37
Registered: March 2009
Member
So, for trainning purposes and support material (tutorials etc) there is no problem.

Just one more question about UPP licences:

Upp is BSD
MinGW and gcc are GPL

Well, when we "generate" an executable from UPP source code using MinGW, what is the licence for the executable? BSD (From UPP) or GPL (from compilers)?

Thanks

Jose
Re: (Commercial) Upp consulting?! [message #20661 is a reply to message #20659] Mon, 30 March 2009 16:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12116
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
JoseB wrote on Mon, 30 March 2009 09:52

So, for trainning purposes and support material (tutorials etc) there is no problem.

Just one more question about UPP licences:

Upp is BSD
MinGW and gcc are GPL

Well, when we "generate" an executable from UPP source code using MinGW, what is the licence for the executable? BSD (From UPP) or GPL (from compilers)?


Compiler itself should not affect the final license.

You might want to check the license of libraries. AFAIK, mingw libraries are public domain...

Mirek
Re: (Commercial) Upp consulting?! [message #20662 is a reply to message #20659] Mon, 30 March 2009 16:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sergeynikitin is currently offline  sergeynikitin
Messages: 736
Registered: January 2008
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contributor

You may not deliver the GCC (MinGW).
Property of GCC - to produce a program in C++ language (not in GCC language). Without this feature, GCC - did not need. If you are not using their source GCC, which generate the code (not libraries to include C++ code), then you have no relationship to the license, which you use GCC.


SergeyNikitin<U++>( linux, wine )
{
    under( Ubuntu || Debian || Raspbian );
}
Re: (Commercial) Upp consulting?! [message #20663 is a reply to message #20662] Mon, 30 March 2009 16:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JoseB is currently offline  JoseB
Messages: 37
Registered: March 2009
Member
Sorry people,

Let me know if i understood:

For training, support, tutorials, etc, no problem at all (BSD, GPL, LGPL).

For creating applications the best option is to delivery the source code too to not have problems of any type, right? Smile

Jose
Re: (Commercial) Upp consulting?! [message #20664 is a reply to message #20657] Mon, 30 March 2009 17:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mr_ped is currently offline  mr_ped
Messages: 801
Registered: November 2005
Location: Czech Republic - Praha
Experienced Contributor

EDIT: I made huge mistake about linking of LGPL/GPL code, see following posts. (and I edited this one too).


Creating applications - depends what they consist of. Options are:

your C++ source - free

U++ libraries - new BSD (free)
- some inclusions in "Bazaar" or "plugin" directory may have they own license, but they are either compatible with BSD in this aspect, or they should be reported to U++ developers as breaking the license. But usually if you see "external" code added to U++, it's worth to look out for license.

clib, stl and other common C/C++ libraries - usually LGPL or free

other more special libraries like SDL, xyzSQL, DirectX, etc..
- you have to check license of each such library

Basically there are 3 most important licenses:

BSD - new is almost like "free", older ones sometimes require to give a credit of original authors

GPL - you can sell the result, but you must provide your source code under GPL too (sort of viral license)

LGPL - "lesser" GPL - very often used for libraries
- you can link dynamically(!) to the library and remain free
- if you modify the library source itself, you should provide it under GPL (sources), but only the library. (i.e. inside library it's GPL as above, outside of library you are free)



- so pure U++ application is free. With some additional libraries like SDL/etc. you should check all the licenses and decide by those, LGPL are almost like free, GPL will infect whole source.

[Updated on: Tue, 31 March 2009 00:16]

Report message to a moderator

Re: (Commercial) Upp consulting?! [message #20665 is a reply to message #20664] Mon, 30 March 2009 20:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JoseB is currently offline  JoseB
Messages: 37
Registered: March 2009
Member
Well, my app uses these ones:

plugin\z
plugin\sqlite3
plugin\png
plugin\jpg

I got this info looking for the IDE window that shows the packages.

It seems that there are no problems with them.


Ok, i got the rule:
1. Develop pure Upp application
2. If external libs are needed, so check their lic or send an email to the authors

thank you

Jose
Re: (Commercial) Upp consulting?! [message #20666 is a reply to message #20664] Mon, 30 March 2009 21:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Senior Contributor
mr_ped wrote on Mon, 30 March 2009 18:27


GPL - you can sell the result, but you must provide your source code under GPL too (sort of viral license)
(clumsy) workaround - you can maybe link it dynamically (loading *.dll for example during program run) and call functions of it from commercial application. But this is sort of gray zone, because you have to do the dynamically linked part well (you can't link statically), and also I'm afraid you can't distribute such *.dll together with non-GPL software, i.e. you must distribute your application and those GPL modules separately. You have to provide sources for GPL modules. And some GPL people claim this is still not legal, maybe the best way is to ask author of GPL code if he likes your usage of it.


I think you can't do that. Still derived software. Must provide all sources, for modules also. This is why LGPL was invented, so that dynamically linked items can be distributed source free.
Re: (Commercial) Upp consulting?! [message #20667 is a reply to message #20666] Mon, 30 March 2009 21:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JoseB is currently offline  JoseB
Messages: 37
Registered: March 2009
Member
Confusion, is not it?

Like i said, we give the source code and no worries about lics. Smile


Jose
Re: (Commercial) Upp consulting?! [message #20669 is a reply to message #20664] Mon, 30 March 2009 22:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12116
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
mr_ped wrote on Mon, 30 March 2009 11:27



LGPL - "lesser" GPL - very often used for libraries
- you can link statically to the library and remain free



AFAIK, wrong. You can only link DYNAMICALLY to the library and remain free.

(The obvious reason is that user of your application is then allowed to replace .so with altered code).

Note that some libraries, like wxWidgets, have amendments to LGPL that explicitly allows static linking too.

Mirek
Re: (Commercial) Upp consulting?! [message #20671 is a reply to message #20657] Tue, 31 March 2009 00:14 Go to previous message
mr_ped is currently offline  mr_ped
Messages: 801
Registered: November 2005
Location: Czech Republic - Praha
Experienced Contributor

Yes, sorry, my mistake.
GPL - no linking.
LGPL - dynamic linking.
Previous Topic: M$
Next Topic: Commercial soft or OpenSource (What kind of programs you create using Ultimate++?)?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Dec 06 02:23:47 CET 2019

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02856 seconds