On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dan . wrote:

To the GIMP User List,

I understand that I can sell GIMP for a fee if I want, but I am not clear whether or not I am allowed to use GIMP for commercial / business purposes.

You are.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

On 02/11/2012 01:00 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dan . wrote:

To the GIMP User List,

I understand that I can sell GIMP for a fee if I want, but I am not clear whether or not I am allowed to use GIMP for commercial / business purposes.

You are.

Yes, the license clearly allows that. And furthermore, should you find your business model successful, and you discover from your customer base that a particular feature not in GIMP would increase its prospects, you are perfectly at liberty to hire a coder to develop that feature.

However, if he or she wants/needs to modify GIMP to add/enable that feature, the license allows that as well, provided those modifications are turned over to the GIMP community for possible release to the rest of the GIMP world. Assistance in terms of code improvement is the "coin of the realm" in the FOSS movement, as I understand it.

Of course, not all modifications would "make the grade", but as long as the code modifications were made available to the community (and consequently to the wold at large) the license requirement would seem to be satisfied. And the GIMP community would love to have additional assistance.

-- Burnie

But what about fonts?
I assume that all fonts would have to be registered, or how do you work that?
Just wondering.
Dan

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Dan . wrote:

Thank you Alexandre--I appreciate it. Do you know if there is documentation somewhere in case an employer / client / business partner asks me to provide verification that I can use GIMP for business/commercial purposes?

Print the file called LICENSE.

But what about fonts?

What fonts?

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

To the GIMP User List,

I understand that I can sell GIMP for a fee if I want

Do you mean it is possible to sell GIMP itself? Can I put an item "GIMP sw" in an invoice? I' don't think it is possible or am I wrong? Thanks
Francesco

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Kekko wrote:

Do you mean it is possible to sell GIMP itself? Can I put an item "GIMP sw" in an invoice? I' don't think it is possible or am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. You can charge money for distributing Gimp. As long as either:

a) you haven't modified it or
b) if you have modified it, you can provide all the source code (including modifications) for free or a reasonable cost (ie. at no profit)

Anyone can distribute GPL'd software for a fee. It's just not a very successful business model most of the time.

-- Frank Gore
THE place to talk photography!
www.FriendlyPhotoZone.com

Frank Gore (gore@friendlyphotozone.com) wrote:

Yes, you are wrong. You can charge money for distributing Gimp. As long as either:

a) you haven't modified it or
b) if you have modified it, you can provide all the source code (including modifications) for free or a reasonable cost (ie. at no profit)

Your distinction between these two cases is not exactly true. Even when you distribute an unmodified Gimp you're required to provide the sourcecode to your customer on request. The easiest way of course is to provide the sourcecode archive on the same medium you use to distribute the Gimp binary, even without the customers request.

The fact that the typical free software project has a prominent presence on the net does not release you from the obligation to provide the source code to your customers (think about a project dropping from the net, this would leave your customers out in the dark...).

Just a minor nitpick :)

Bye, Simon

On 2/11/12, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Dan . >

What fonts?

Well, about fonts, I was remembering when I used to work in graphics and we had to be really vigilant about font licenses. I was thinking of this recent post on gimplist, which seems to cover the personal or small commercial use:

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2011-December/msg00207.html

But actually I was wondering more specifically about the packaging of fonts with a distribution of Gimp. Were you to supply a set of fonts with, is there a collection or place to choose from that are all free, or you buy them, or you let it up to the user to get their own, etc?

That's all. Thanks
Dan

Daniel Smith (opened.to@gmail.com) wrote:

But actually I was wondering more specifically about the packaging of fonts with a distribution of Gimp. Were you to supply a set of fonts with, is there a collection or place to choose from that are all free, or you buy them, or you let it up to the user to get their own, etc?

The Gimp project does not provide any fonts. You'd have to ask your source for the fonts for the terms and conditions attached to the fonts.

A good source for you might be http://openfontlibrary.org/ , which has its roots in the free software community.

I hope this helps, Simon

thanks all.
dan

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Simon Budig wrote:

Your distinction between these two cases is not exactly true. Even when you distribute an unmodified Gimp you're required to provide the sourcecode to your customer on request. The easiest way of course is to provide the sourcecode archive on the same medium you use to distribute the Gimp binary, even without the customers request.

Wrong. Nowhere does it say that YOU must personally make the source code available, only that it must be available. In this case, the source code already happens to be readily available all over the web. Only if you modify it and then distribute a binary based on the modified code must you provide the modified source code.

"Hello, Thank you for your request. The source code you asked about can be downloaded from http://www.gimp.org"

-- Frank Gore
THE place to talk photography!
www.FriendlyPhotoZone.com

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:09:21 +0100, Kekko wrote:

Do you mean it is possible to sell GIMP itself? Can I put an item "GIMP sw" in an invoice? I' don't think it is possible or am I wrong?

You can, as long as you stay within the requirements of the GPL.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:10:33 -0500, Frank Gore wrote:

Yes, you are wrong. You can charge money for distributing Gimp. As long as either:

a) you haven't modified it
or
b) if you have modified it, you can provide all the source code (including modifications) for free or a reasonable cost (ie. at no profit)

This is wrong actually - even if you haven't modified a GPL-licensed program, you have to provide the source code of the specific binary you redistributed on request (you can charge a nominal fee for the source code). This is something you have to be careful of if you redistribute the binary on the web - offer both the source code and binary from the same site, it's specifically not enough to just point to some 3rd party site that has the source code, unless you've made arrangements with that site that it'll keep providing the source code for your binary.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:40:33 -0500, Frank Gore wrote:

Wrong. Nowhere does it say that YOU must personally make the source code available, only that it must be available. In this case, the source code already happens to be readily available all over the web. Only if you modify it and then distribute a binary based on the modified code must you provide the modified source code.

"Hello, Thank you for your request. The source code you asked about can be downloaded from http://www.gimp.org"

FSF's GPL FAQ covers this specific case and says you normally can't do that:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary

2012/2/12 Jernej Simončič :

FSF's GPL FAQ covers this specific case and says you normally can't do that:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary

Hey you're right!

Not terribly onerous, though. So you can sell Gimp all you want for as much as you want, as long as the source code is available for free or a nominal fee (ie. postage cost and no profit).

Now, let's avoid the debate over trademarks...

-- Frank Gore
THE place to talk photography!
www.FriendlyPhotoZone.com

Frank Gore (gore@friendlyphotozone.com) wrote:

Wrong. Nowhere does it say that YOU must personally make the source code available, only that it must be available. In this case, the source code already happens to be readily available all over the web.

You probably should read the license then. In the case of the Gimp this is GPL v3 and in section 6 you'd find:

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
[...]
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

So it is *your* personal obligation to ensure that you have an answer to specific request by your customer. You cannot just rely that someone on the net might have it available. Either you do a contract with a third party or you provide the source yourself. Testing your luck is not a good strategy.

Bye,
Simon

Have there been lawsuits or fines regarding open source cases though? It's funny, for all the times I've heard of for example Microsoft or Adobe or whoever being involved in these "evaluations" of businesses where they check for licenses etc, and massive levies afterward, (whether the stories were real or created) I've never heard of any open source lawsuits or snares. Just wondering what you meant by "testing your luck." Dan

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Daniel Smith wrote:

Have there been lawsuits or fines regarding open source cases though?

By who against whom regarding what in what country ?

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Daniel Smith wrote:

Have there been lawsuits or fines regarding open source cases though? It's funny, for all the times I've heard of for example Microsoft or Adobe or whoever being involved in these "evaluations" of businesses where they check for licenses etc, and massive levies afterward, (whether the stories were real or created) I've never heard of any open source lawsuits or snares. Just wondering what you meant by "testing your luck."

Yes, the GPL has been tested in many courts. There are a few examples on the GPL Wikipedia page. Many of the decisions were handed down as judgments, not just as settlements between parties.

-- Frank Gore
THE place to talk photography!
www.FriendlyPhotoZone.com