Re: [open-cobol-list] Another open source cobol

[Brian Tiffin]

On February 20, 2009 12:45:30 pm Erez Schatz wrote:
> 2009/2/19 David Essex <address@hidden>:
> > The following was posted on the OC forum by 'The COBOL-IT Staff'.
> >
> >> We separate the public from the customer version of
> >> the compiler. The public version is freely available
> >> on our web site, while the customer version, with a
> >> number of extended features, is reserved to our customers
> >> only. We strictly respect the terms and the spirit of
> >> the GPL license since the source of the public version
> >> are sent on simple email request and our customers
> >> always receive the sources code together with the
> >> compiled binary.
>
> For the record, this is, indeed, fully complient with the GPL license.

On February 20, 2009 12:45:30 pm Erez Schatz wrote:
> 2009/2/19 David Essex <address@hidden>:
> > The following was posted on the OC forum by 'The COBOL-IT Staff'.
> >
> >> We separate the public from the customer version of
> >> the compiler. The public version is freely available
> >> on our web site, while the customer version, with a
> >> number of extended features, is reserved to our customers
> >> only. We strictly respect the terms and the spirit of
> >> the GPL license since the source of the public version
> >> are sent on simple email request and our customers
> >> always receive the sources code together with the
> >> compiled binary.
>
> For the record, this is, indeed, fully complient with the GPL license.

And does this not also mean that any customer of any extended features, 
derived work is free to give it to others, upgrade it, sell it, post the 
source codes, all under the rules of works derived from GPL?

I like the business model of offering commercialized support for an OpenCOBOL 
derivative.  But the GPL is viral.  Customers of any derived works have to be 
informed of their rights to give away source code and derive their own works.

GPL code can not be in proprietory software.  As the O'Reily book 
Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing, chapter 3 states

From: http://oreilly.com/catalog/osfreesoft/book/

"This key part of the second paragraph of the GPL is the most important 
provision of the license. Derivative works must be licensed under the GPL and 
be subject to all of its restrictions. Unlike works licensed under the MIT or 
the BSD License, works derivative of work licensed under the GPL (or the 
original work itself) may not be made proprietary or otherwise limited in 
their distribution. If a programmer is look-ing to create proprietary works, 
the entire universe of GPL-licensed software is closed off to her. Indeed, as 
described in Chapter 6, the inclusion of any GPL-licensed code in purportedly 
proprietary software could prevent the creator of that software from 
enforcing any of the rights otherwise available under copyright: any person 
could distribute, sell, or modify that software, in disregard of any rights 
that would other-wise be granted the creator under the copyright laws."

And

"In the event that a licensee violates any term of the GPL by, for example, 
distributing a proprietary derivative work based on GPL-licensed code, all 
rights under the GPL are voided. This brings back into play the ordinary 
protections of copyright law (and of patent law, if applicable) described in 
Chapter 1. In the event of such a breach, the ex-licensee would become 
legally liable to the licensor for violation of the copyright. The licensor 
could enjoin the ex-licensee from distributing the derivative work and could 
sue for damages, which could include, among other things, any and all profits 
the ex-licensee made from distributing the derivative work."

Roger and Keisuke are not really at any risk here.   Could be lucrative.  ;) 
RMS and the legal team at FSF did a great job ensuring that good works by 
good people are protected.  And as Aoirthoir mentioned, it'll be up to what 
gets bundled in any COBOL-IT "restricted to customers only" packaging.  One 
line of original or derived GPL licensed code, and well ... lawyers may make 
some money.  If I know anything about lawyers (and I don't, so I'm talking 
out my arse now), they will lie in wait and attempt to maximize any amounts.

Cheers,
Brian