I have been watching the evolution of the Ubuntu Software Center for quite a while now. I had doubts about its interface and its speed, but I liked the fact that it offered an easy, down-to-earth interface that allowed users to install software easily. However, I have to say that the way the Ubuntu Software Center has evolved is worrying me -- a lot. I am not against the idea of selling software. What I am against, is confusing proprietary software with non-proprietary software, The Ubuntu Software Center seems to be doing just that.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @06:40AM
If I were to write a program in C under Linux using GCC would I be able to sell binaries and not give out the source?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @06:59AM
Yes. Just like thousands of games on Steam are doing right now, like Loki Games did 15 years ago.
Wait, why is it that all the examples I can find are games, and all I can come up with in the "non-games" section is the port of Word Perfect that existed for a short time a loooong time ago? You'd think Linux was a gaming OS.
(Score: 2) by TLA on Monday June 08 2015, @07:15AM
why would you go anywhere near that crapfest that is Steam?? Particularly with that malware magnet Source.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @08:46AM
Every serious developer will use a better compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @10:25AM
Lots of serious developers use GCC. How is it that you've determined that there are no "serious" developers who use it?
(Score: 1, Disagree) by TLA on Monday June 08 2015, @06:59AM
No [gnu.org]. Is the short answer. You must distribute the source whether or not you also distribute the binary.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @08:04AM
I think we are having a failure to communicate. I am asking if I write my own hello world program in C with whatever new idea also, and compile it under Linux using GCC can I sell the binary and not give out the source?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by TLA on Monday June 08 2015, @12:59PM
my bad, it was Dark O'Clock and I was misreading due exhaustion.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday June 08 2015, @08:11AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday June 08 2015, @08:17AM
Well first, C is just a language so it's use neither here nor there with respect to the GPL. Your own C code can be closed, open, or whatever you choose.
As for GCC, it's not quite so cut and dried as you make it sound: http://www.sitepoint.com/public-license-explained/ [sitepoint.com] (nice link from the comments here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2080588/can-i-legally-incorporate-gpl-software-in-a-proprietary-closed-source-web-app [stackoverflow.com] ) The discussion here is good too: https://lwn.net/Articles/583622/ [lwn.net] You do have to be careful however, not to integrate GPL software into your program when using GCC (LGPL however solves the problem and does not invoke the GPL).
Finally, you only have to release the source IF you distribute the code. If you make some changes to GPL'ed software and never distribute that software, you can keep those changes to yourself for all eternity.
Going back to GCC, imagine you wrote a novel using emacs -- do you really think that would mean you have to release the book free because of emacs? How about movie special effects done in Blender? It's GPL'ed -- did we all get free Spiderman-2 tickets?
(Score: 1) by Shimitar on Monday June 08 2015, @08:26AM
The Short Answer: YES
The Not So Short Answer:
Let's not get confused. The GPL license applies to software you either include in your own or modify, it does not apply to by-products of it's usage. So, yes, you can use the GCC compiler (which is GPLv3) to produce proprietary, closed-source software you want to sell or monetize in any way you want.
What you CANNOT do is modify GCC and sell it without providing your modification...
What you CANNOT do is link GPL-only libraries to your non-GPL sources...
So, again, yes you can, provided you don't link any pure GPL library to it, which is not so hard since almost all the common used libraries on linux are LGPL, BSD or other non so strictly licensed. Yes, including glibc which is LGPL.
GPL is aboud freedom and make sure that freedom cannot be removed at any point in time, just that.
Think of it, it would be quite useless to have a GIMP which forces you to release ANY photo or draw you make as creative-commons or GPL, right? Likewhise, think a Calligra/KOffice word which forces you to release as GPL any book or article you write...
Why should it be different for compiler output?
Coding is an art. No, java is not coding. Yes, i am biased, i know, sorry if this bothers you.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @10:44AM
I am not a lawyer and they have ways to twist these things. I do not know the answer to your question, although thank you for your response.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @10:48AM
How is this flaimbait? Nice modding.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Monday June 08 2015, @07:40PM
Sorry I couldn't reply earlier, so I modded it flamebait, because I believe that's what it truly is. It's an impertinent question and disingenuous. In recent months and years these discussion forums seem to have been over-run by anti-GPL FUD and pro-BSD platitudes. Call it a conspiracy theory, but it might be that Apple, Microsoft, Google, Oracle and friends and having a paid troll/astroturfing campaign. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the Putinbots were in on it too.
This sort of question smacks of willful ignorance, and it was discussed to death 20 years ago when Linux became very popular all of a sudden. You'd think with the popularity of FOSS these days most people would have a basic understanding.
The FSF's web site, wikipedia and the OSI explain this clearly, at length and unambiguously.
Looking further up this discussion there are all sorts of idiotic questions about licenses that are just plain insulting, like, "If I make modifications to a project under the GPL and redistribute it, can I redistribute it under a different licence?" Hell no, it's right there in the GPL, and you are supposed to state that in a comment block at the top of your source files.
Let me give you an example (of the LGPL, the one that lets you write a Free library to be used by Closed applications by dynamic linking) from one of my own sources (the name has been changed to prevent embarrassment):
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @10:16PM
I'm sorry also. Sorry I asked the question and got treated like an asshole. No I'm not sorry. Fuck you.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday June 08 2015, @10:53PM
Sorry if I offended you. I am very frustrated with the way things are going.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Tuesday June 09 2015, @12:08AM
I accept your apology. I am sorry if if I offended you, and also for my ignorance.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 1) by turgid on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:08PM
Don't be sorry for your ignorance. I just got very frustrated.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @09:02AM