Closed Source On Linux and BSD?

An anonymous reader writes "I want to start (very small) software/hardware business. The code in question will be closed source. I won't modify or use any GPL code or any 3rd-party sources. It will be my own handwritten C/C++ code from start to finish. I am planning to sell embedded-like boxes with an OS (Linux or BSD) and this code. I am more familiar with Linux but I am scared a little bit of Linux licensing, and also of Linux fanboy-ism: I personally got a 'go to hell with your @#$ closed code' slur on Slashdot. I am not a GPL guru and not a software freedom fighter. I just want to do my job and make a living." Read on for this reader's five particular questions.
My questions:

1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?

2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)

3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?

4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?

5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?

Comments

Some answers

[Anonymous Coward]

1. If you want to start a bussiness and have legal questions, go ask a lawyer, don't ask on slashdot.

2. Even if you decide to post on slashdot, at least try to read the licenses in question before plus the many articles on the subject that are readily available online.

3. If you want to have good and honest answers, avoid the word fanboy in your original post. Starting off by insulting the very people whose help you ask for isn't a very good idea.

Take, take, take?

[winchester]

So you are interested in using other people's work, you are interested in getting other people's opinions, all for free, yet you contribute nothing to the community that gave you so much...

Some people would call that selfish.

Here is my advice: talk to a lawyer who is knowledgeable on licensing and IP matters.

Re:Answers

[Znork]

" '2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)' Only if it's LGPL."

With an added caveat; you can statically link the code with an LGPL library, but _you have to provide the option for the recepient to dynamically link should they so desire_. Include an unsupported dynamically linked binary, or perhaps better, object files so the recepient can relink statically against another version (again, you dont have to support that, just provide the option).

This is so that if the libraries are changed and upgraded, security bugs fixed, etc, the user isnt stuck having to use that particular statically linked version.

"'Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?' You can do whatever you want with BSD code"

As long as it's only BSD code, of course. Depending on the definition of 'BSD-based boxes', they can perfectly well include GPL, LGPL, or code under any other license. Anything you link against or in any other way include you have to check for licenses, wether it's Free, free or proprietary software.

And of course, no matter how careful you are with licenses, you can get legally nuked when the USPTO with its usual competence level grants a patent on "putting obfuscated code linked with free software on an embedded device" (or whatever your device is supposed to do).

You may just want to do your job and make a living, but those the 'freedom fighters' are trying to protect you from have no interest in your wishes. They want your money if you're lucky. Or they want you off the market if you're not.

Even so,

[hummassa]

1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)? A1. Yes -- unless you are making some kernel module that is a derivative work of the kernel, where your kernel module will have to be licensed under the GPLv2.

2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.) A2a. Linux (the kernel) does not come with any libraries for you to link.
A2b. GNU/Linux (the whole system) comes with many libraries, some of them BSD-licensed, some GPL-licensed, some GPL-with-linking-exception-licensed, some LGPL-licensed, etc... it's a common interpretation of the GPL that if you link to a GPL-(no-linking-exception) library (like GNU readline or Qt) you are making a derivative work and thus, you have to license your work under the GPL.

3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)? A3. You can do this in any case -- except (maybe, IIRC) if you are distributing your code under the GPL/LGPL.

4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party? A4. Not really (parent poster is right on the mark)

5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems? A5. Yes you are. BUT...

and I mean this respectfully: as you will be selling your box as an embedded utility, what do you have to lose by GPL'ing (or otherwise opening) your code? If you do things right, you will have:
I. a community of people that are willing to buy your box to start;
II. a community will want to tinker and make your product better, fast, and you get to incorporate the changes for the next versions of your product;
III. the respect of a lot of people.

Example: lots of people I know have Linksys (WRT54G[L]) wireless routers _because_ they know they can tinker with it, that there are lots of new, interesting uses to it with the alternate verstions of the software, etc. I, myself, when installing SoHo wi-fi networks _only_ recommend WRTs to my clients, as opposed to non-tinkerable D-LINKs that here in Brasil cost 30-40% less.

Re:Even so,

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but Cisco makes money off of the hardware. This guy doesn't sound like he's going to be doing that. I think his concern is if his code is open, what stops someone else from adopting the same business model?

Re:Why closed?

[dhfoo]

You seem to be looking at it from the wrong angle.

If you don't care about the GPL, don't use GPL'd software. Simple.

The only reason we are having this discussion is because GNU/Linux has become so succesfull BECAUSE no-one has been able to hijack it and close it.

Understand now?

It's not about zealotry, it's about denying greedy, selfish people the ability to build on the shoulders of others without giving anything back.

Hardware gives you a leg up, though in that case..

[maillemaker]

>Example: lots of people I know have Linksys (WRT54G[L]) wireless routers _because_ they know they can
>tinker with it, that there are lots of new, interesting uses to it with the alternate verstions of the software, etc.

I'm not in the software industry, and I don't know much about GPL.

But I do know that if my sole /product/ was software, I, too, would be leary about giving away the code for free.

In your Linksys example, there is a hardware component that is not easy to replicate - there is a barrier to duplication. So in that case it is a great benefit to create and sell the hardware, but leave the software open so that the world can improve the functionality and attractiveness of the hardware you are selling.

But I don't understand how this works with a pure software product. If you give it away to the world, then someone else is just going to take the code and make a derivative product from it that does the same thing but is free. The way I see it, the only thing authors of free software can sell is support. /I/ wouldn't invest in a new product where I couldn't make any money selling the actual product but only support for it. What if everyone wants your product but no one needs or wants support? You've just invented the perfect software - but it's worthless to you.

I guess I just still don't understand the free software movement as a business.