wxWidgets Discussion Forum

Just a little question : it is possible to sell source code that use wxWidgets ?

Yes it is. wxWidgets license is very elegant for selling code. Make sure if you use other components that they do not have GPL or other licenses, or link them seperately to avoid problems.

- Jorgen

Jorg wrote:that they do not have GPL or other licenses, or link them seperately to avoid problems.

- Jorgen

GPL license also have problems, you can't charge anything for your code if you use GPL components.

priyank_bolia wrote:GPL license also have problems, you can't charge anything for your code if you use GPL components.

Even "worse": When using GPLed components, your code will fall under the GPL too.
LGPLed code however would be ok, if you don't modify it.

The wxWidgets license is very "free". You may use the code, even modfiy it and still your work can be published under another license.

upCASE wrote:Even "worse": When using GPLed components, your code will fall under the GPL too.

Define "using ... components".

I'm usually dumb about these legal issues but it occured to me to read a few days ago "Legal stuff" section of:
http://www.radiks.net/~rhuebner/mathldoc.html
Note direct reference to Richard Stallman opinion.

ABX

Note that in that page the are talking about LGPL not regular GPL. There is a big difference.

In my non-legally-binding understanding, this is the difference:
GPL: If you use it, look at it, smell it from a distance or hear about it, your code has to be GPL as well. Works kinda like the agent in the second Matrix where he keeps turning everyone into a replica of himself my touching them As you can tell, I'm no fan of GPL.

LGPL: This is a more sane license. If you modify the LGPL'd library, you must share the code of the library. Now, if you write a program that uses the library, then it doesn't need to be any specific license. In other words, this license covers the LGPL'd code iself rather than extending to any code that uses it (like GPL). There may be some caveats about static vs. dynamic linking of an LGPL'd lib.

I personally stay away from GPL libs like the bird flu.

metalogic wrote: GPL: If you use it, look at it, smell it from a distance or hear about it, your code has to be GPL as well.

Exaggeration aside, I don't think it is that restrictive. Apple distributes GPL'd code on OSX (mySQL, etc) and their entire OS is not GPL;... I don't now if I'm missing something here

I took the exageration a little far.

I was referring specifically to libraries. If you use a GPL library, then your project must be GPLd. Not so with LGPL.

Stand alone projects such as MySQL are different as they are not part of your project other than maybe calling it's API.

So to clarify my personal opinion:
GPL packages are fine (MySQL, Linux, etc.). GPL libraries suck as they can only be used in GPL code.

thats the thing about the wx license, some 3rd party (free, mind you) components (wxActiveX) is LGPL

I think things are little bit misinterpreted here, GPL and LPGL are different things and both are the best in its own. Each is used for different things. There are not just mere licenses but a way of thinking, that has revolutionised the world. The thing is GPL has started the open source movement and hepled people to fight the closed source prices. As a developer you want to book profits and don't want to open your source, and assume others will supply there hard work for free, that's not a good approach. nobody asked you to use GPL code. LGPL was made for things like gcc, becuase it was a necessary thing to encourage people to use gcc and write code for open source products, and that has a differnet meaning altogether. Now from our perspective, we want to use the GPL code in closed source, for that a lot of companies are using dual licenses, you that those who want to contribute to open source can use it for free and for properitary soultions, they have to pay a small fees for the development and enhancement of your favourite applications, that's also a good thing. Why people keep distance from paying a small fees for that license.

priyank_bolia wrote:LGPL was made for things like gcc, becuase it was a necessary thing to encourage people to use gcc and write code for open source products, and that has a differnet meaning altogether.

gcc is licensed under GPL, not LGPL.

priyank_bolia wrote:LGPL was made for things like gcc

Actually it is my understanding that LGPL was made for things like libraries so that the library can remain open source while the software that uses the library can have any old license it wants.

gcc is licensed under GPL, not LGPL.

Actually it is my understanding that LGPL was made for things like libraries so that the library can remain open source while the software that
uses the library can have any old license it wants.

Ya, Sorry, I was confused, actually it were the libgcc and others things, they are part of LPGL, as this code is used in making new programs, and you can use gcc for commercial software development. AFAIK.

MingW (at least most parts of it) is public domain, not sure about gcc though