There is no license to use the software. The only license for the GIMP pertains to the code it's self (altering it, etc). You are free to install and use the GIMP on as many machines as you want, free of charge, for any purpose you like. Please keep in mind that there is no warranty. You retain all rights to the graphics produced with GIMP in accordance with the laws of your region. Usage of the GIMP does not alter your rights to your own work, or others rights to theirs.

From the Help menu in GIMP choose "About", then click the "License" button. It will show you this:

---
GIMP is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the Licence, or (at your option) any later version.

GIMP is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public Licence for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public Licence along with GIMP. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/. ---

Hope it helps. :)

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:57 AM, srikanth < srikanth-kavarthapu@kobelconet.com> wrote:

Dear All,

I am Planning to install the GIMP software for the users in my Organization.

Now I want to know is there any special license required to use the software. If so, please share all the details for the purchase of the software.

Thanks & Regard's

Srikanth Kavarthapu

Executive IT

Kobelco Cranes India (P) Ltd.

www. kobelco-cranes.com/India

P Before printing this email or any attachments, think about your responsibility and commitment to the ENVIRONMENT

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________ ________

Disclaimer Clause:

This e-mail is from Kobelco Cranes India Pvt. Ltd. The information in this e-mail (including attachment) is confidential and is only intended for use by the addressee. If you have received this e-mail and are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and delete this e-mail from
your computer. Any unauthorized disclosure of the information, use or dissemination either in whole or in part is prohibited. Computer viruses can
be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail (including attachment) for the presence of viruses. Kobelco Cranes India Pvt. Ltd. accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________ ________

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:12:03PM +0100, C R wrote:

There is no license to use the software. The only license for the GIMP pertains to the code it's self (altering it, etc). You are free to install and use the GIMP on as many machines as you want, free of charge, for any purpose you like. Please keep in mind that there is no warranty. You retain all rights to the graphics produced with GIMP in accordance with the laws of your region. Usage of the GIMP does not alter your rights to your own work, or others rights to theirs.

From the Help menu in GIMP choose "About", then click the "License" button.

It will show you this:

---
GIMP is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the Licence, or (at your option) any later version.

GIMP is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public Licence for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public Licence along with GIMP. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/. ---

Hope it helps. :)

Since these kind of clarification request are frequent and this explanation is IMHO well done and clear, why not adding it in the top of the general FAQ?

http://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html

Just to avoid to write the same over and over...

--

Marco Ciampa

I know a joke about UDP, but you might not get it.

+------------------------+ | GNU/Linux User #78271 |
| FSFE fellow #364 |
+------------------------+

On 9/17/15, srikanth wrote:

Dear All,

Thank You very Much for the information.

Of course GPL license is about source code and Binaries can have another license,
In this case, binaries are also leaved freely to use and distribute.

This are my thoughts based on free software source license: Binaries (running program) can be made by anyone using source code license rights,
and distributed under terms and conditions of whatever one likes.

Source code and ability to change, compile and produce product yourself, gives you the ability to treat both source and binary program as it _is_ truly yours:
If you compile and make binaries by yourself, it IS yours. That is the power that free software on source level license gives you. (GNU GPL)

If you distribute (with changing source code) binary product to other organizations,
you are obliged by the source license to also relay them changed source code, too,
so the program continues to live.

On 09/18/2015 11:52 AM, Nikolam wrote:

On 9/17/15, srikanth wrote:

Dear All,

Thank You very Much for the information.

Of course GPL license is about source code and Binaries can have another license,

No.

Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD

Yes, Oracle Solaris and RedHat are examples where binaries are licensed as company that is distributing binaries seems fit.But source is available that other users can make binaries if they use their own bending (CentOS, Fedora).
Not to mention forks like LibreOffice from OpenOffice etc. or example of Java under GPL, that have Oracle-distributed binaries but also OpenJDK. It is just important that branding is not the same, binraires are distributed as distributor seems fit.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:

On 09/18/2015 11:52 AM, Nikolam wrote:

On 9/17/15, srikanth wrote:

Dear All,

Thank You very Much for the information.

Of course GPL license is about source code and Binaries can have another license,

No.

--
Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Nikolam wrote:

Yes, Oracle Solaris and RedHat are examples where binaries are licensed as company that is distributing binaries seems fit.

Please name an example of GPL software binaries relicensed by Red Hat.

Not to mention forks like LibreOffice from OpenOffice etc.

Oh my goodness... Both OpenOffice and LibreOffice are licensed under LGPL. Do some facts checking pretty please.

Alex

Feel free to use my description on the website. I can submit a patch for it also if that's desirable.
On 18 Sep 2015 2:04 pm, "Alexandre Prokoudine" < alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Nikolam wrote:

Yes, Oracle Solaris and RedHat are examples where binaries are licensed

as

company that is distributing binaries seems fit.

Please name an example of GPL software binaries relicensed by Red Hat.

Not to mention forks like LibreOffice from OpenOffice etc.

Oh my goodness... Both OpenOffice and LibreOffice are licensed under LGPL. Do some facts checking pretty please.

Alex _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:11 PM, C R wrote:

Feel free to use my description on the website.

Where would you like it to show up? Just in case, we already have a new FAQ on the new website, and it answers this question in layman's terms.

Alex

I'd patch the new website code thusly: http://opendesignstudio.org/gimp/about/

My thought is the majority of people coming to the site are not going to be interested in altering the code, but rather using it. When most users think of software licences for graphics programs, it generally has less to do with the code, and more to do with the content they are producing with the code.
People coming with the intent to alter and distribute the code likely already know what FOSS software is, so a secondary mention of the GNU license seems adequate.

I have thusly altered the first paragraph slightly and added a separate paragraph directly below with headline for licenses. I think this is clear enough to keep most people from bugging us about professional use/installation of the compiled GIMP.

Thoughts?

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine < alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:11 PM, C R wrote:

Feel free to use my description on the website.

Where would you like it to show up? Just in case, we already have a new FAQ on the new website, and it answers this question in layman's terms.

Alex
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On 09/18/2015 04:33 PM, C R wrote:

I'd patch the new website code thusly: http://opendesignstudio.org/gimp/about/

My thought is the majority of people coming to the site are not going to be interested in altering the code, but rather using it.

Thoughts?

Please check that your text covers all the freedoms of the Free Software definition and does not contradict any of the statements mentioned there:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

P.S. Deployment of Free Software within an organization, as it was the initial question in this thread, quickly advances beyond mere usage.

Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD

Does not contradict. It however, does not mention the four freedoms verbatim however (neither did the previous text that was there). Maybe it should?

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:

On 09/18/2015 04:33 PM, C R wrote:

I'd patch the new website code thusly: http://opendesignstudio.org/gimp/about/

My thought is the majority of people coming to the site are not going to

be

interested in altering the code, but rather using it.

Thoughts?

Please check that your text covers all the freedoms of the Free Software definition and does not contradict any of the statements mentioned there:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

P.S. Deployment of Free Software within an organization, as it was the initial question in this thread, quickly advances beyond mere usage.

-- Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

I have added a hyperlink to "Free and Open Source Software", that links to https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

My thought is the gnu.org page explains the freedoms of all open source software well enough. I've only filled in the direct implications of the four freedoms for GIMP software users in regards to the questions we keep getting regarding licensing, and usage of GIMP for professional purposes/companies.

Changes welcome as always. -C

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:49 PM, C R wrote:

Does not contradict. It however, does not mention the four freedoms verbatim however (neither did the previous text that was there). Maybe it should?

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:

On 09/18/2015 04:33 PM, C R wrote:

I'd patch the new website code thusly: http://opendesignstudio.org/gimp/about/

My thought is the majority of people coming to the site are not going

to be

interested in altering the code, but rather using it.

Thoughts?

Please check that your text covers all the freedoms of the Free Software definition and does not contradict any of the statements mentioned there:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

P.S. Deployment of Free Software within an organization, as it was the initial question in this thread, quickly advances beyond mere usage.

-- Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

El vie, 18-09-2015 a las 16:03 +0100, C R escribió:

I have added a hyperlink to "Free and Open Source Software", that links to
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

My thought is the gnu.org page explains the freedoms of all open source
software well enough. I've only filled in the direct implications of the
four freedoms for GIMP software users in regards to the questions we keep
getting regarding licensing, and usage of GIMP for professional purposes/companies.

Changes welcome as always.

The license information block has a typo in the title, and GIMP is mentioned as "the GIMP" a couple of times. Also the GPL link is listed twice, in a couple of paragraphs that are a bit redundand and probably can be merged into one.

I wonder if saying that the only license pertains to the source code. I'd say that the binaries are also covered by the license, since you are obligued to make the source code available when you distribute the binaries.

I think the first paragraph is ok (once you remove "the" from GIMP), but the second one needs work for more clarity. I'm not a native english speaker, so maybe this isn't 100% correct, but I'd go for something like this, replacing the second paragraph:

"The program itself is governed by the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) which ensures that users have freedom to use the program with any purpose, study and modify its source code and share modifications to the community. You are allowed and encouraged to share the program with your friends and colleagues, install it in your school or organization and use it for any purpose. If you're planning to modify the program and re-distribute it with your modifications, make sure that you make the source code available too. That's the only obligation required by the license. Follow [this link] if you need more information abut the GNU General Public License."

Gez.

El vie, 18-09-2015 a las 14:10 -0300, Gez escribió:

"The program itself is governed by the terms of the GNU General Public
License (GPL) which ensures that users have freedom to use the program
with any purpose, study and modify its source code and share modifications to the community. You are allowed and encouraged to share
the program with your friends and colleagues, install it in your school
or organization and use it for any purpose. If you're planning to modify the program and re-distribute it with your
modifications, make sure that you make the source code available too. That's the only obligation required by the license. Follow [this link] if you need more information abut the GNU General Public License."

I missed the "no warranty" bit. Is it really necessary? If yes, why? Is it some required legal waiver or just a kind way of saying "don't blame us if something went wrong and you lose your work"?

Personally I find that kind of stuff really unnecessary. It's like making an excuse in advance: "look, it may fail, don't blame us". If someone wants to sue you I don't think the "no warranty" claim will make any difference. But seriously, who would do that?

I've been working with software for 20 years, I've lost count of the times I've lost work because software failed, crashed or froze. I may or may not cursed the software and its makers when that happened, but never thought about suing the makers for the half hour of work I lost because I forgot to hit CTRL+S (or CTRL+E :-p)

That being said, GIMP is probably the most stable software I use, which makes that remark even more unnecessary.

Gez.

On 09/18/15 07:10 PM, Gez wrote:

I wonder if saying that the only license pertains to the source code. I'd say that the binaries are also covered by the license, since you are obligued to make the source code available when you distribute the binaries.

Source code is covered and source changes, if binaries are distributed. But binaries itself can have whatever licence one wants, if source and source changes are available.
That is exactly what this thread is about - there is the difference.

If one wants to change binary license of it's own build, one can change brending and release changed source. Every user has same power to release binaries if wants to learn building it. That is why there is so much different Linux distros with all builded packages around.

But centralised development and binary releasing has it's reasons for sanity checks, per-patch audit, chain of trust and keeping brending together with the quality control in one place, to be used by many with confidence.

GPL requires that user of binaries be informed about their rights as user and rights to source and changes. So it is not enough to just display binary license to user.
That is because per license there are no users and developers, everyone has same rights. That difference is imposed by the need for centralizing projects and personal abilities.

Licence is not misspelt. If you are outside of the States, that's how you spell the noun form of "license".
http://grammarist.com/spelling/licence-license/

The revisions suggested does not answer whether the work done in GIMP is yours, and does not mention that your work in GIMP is not even governed by the licence, or that you can use it for professional work. I think this is an important point, because that's what people ask about. The percentage of people asking about modifying the code is tiny compared to the people who just want to use the program as-is for creative work. Very few users even know what it would take to download and modify the code, and I'd rather not confuse people in what amounts to an introduction to the software. I think it's good enough to mention it's FOSS, include the link as I've done, and sure, maybe switch a few words around. Not to mention it's useless for people to read through the license when it does not pertain to usage of GIMP as a graphics program for professional work. It's just one more thing to confuse people, when what they want to know (use case) is not covered by the license in the first place.

My 2p.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Gez wrote:

El vie, 18-09-2015 a las 16:03 +0100, C R escribió:

I have added a hyperlink to "Free and Open Source Software", that links to
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

My thought is the gnu.org page explains the freedoms of all open source
software well enough. I've only filled in the direct implications of the
four freedoms for GIMP software users in regards to the questions we keep
getting regarding licensing, and usage of GIMP for professional purposes/companies.

Changes welcome as always.

The license information block has a typo in the title, and GIMP is mentioned as "the GIMP" a couple of times. Also the GPL link is listed twice, in a couple of paragraphs that are a bit redundand and probably can be merged into one.

I wonder if saying that the only license pertains to the source code. I'd say that the binaries are also covered by the license, since you are obligued to make the source code available when you distribute the binaries.

I think the first paragraph is ok (once you remove "the" from GIMP), but the second one needs work for more clarity. I'm not a native english speaker, so maybe this isn't 100% correct, but I'd go for something like this, replacing the second paragraph:

"The program itself is governed by the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) which ensures that users have freedom to use the program with any purpose, study and modify its source code and share modifications to the community. You are allowed and encouraged to share the program with your friends and colleagues, install it in your school or organization and use it for any purpose. If you're planning to modify the program and re-distribute it with your modifications, make sure that you make the source code available too. That's the only obligation required by the license. Follow [this link] if you need more information abut the GNU General Public License."

Gez.
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

I included a reminder about the warranty it because it's included in big bold letters in the about information for GIMP. I have no basis for judging whether that's necessary or not, other than someone thought it was worth shouting digitally about. :)

-C

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Gez wrote:

El vie, 18-09-2015 a las 14:10 -0300, Gez escribió:

"The program itself is governed by the terms of the GNU General Public
License (GPL) which ensures that users have freedom to use the program
with any purpose, study and modify its source code and share modifications to the community. You are allowed and encouraged to share
the program with your friends and colleagues, install it in your school
or organization and use it for any purpose. If you're planning to modify the program and re-distribute it with your
modifications, make sure that you make the source code available too. That's the only obligation required by the license. Follow [this link] if you need more information abut the GNU General Public License."

I missed the "no warranty" bit. Is it really necessary? If yes, why? Is it some required legal waiver or just a kind way of saying "don't blame us if something went wrong and you lose your work"?

Personally I find that kind of stuff really unnecessary. It's like making an excuse in advance: "look, it may fail, don't blame us". If someone wants to sue you I don't think the "no warranty" claim will make any difference. But seriously, who would do that?

I've been working with software for 20 years, I've lost count of the times I've lost work because software failed, crashed or froze. I may or may not cursed the software and its makers when that happened, but never thought about suing the makers for the half hour of work I lost because I forgot to hit CTRL+S (or CTRL+E :-p)

That being said, GIMP is probably the most stable software I use, which makes that remark even more unnecessary.

Gez. _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

I have also changed the spelling of licence to license since that's how it is all over the gnu website. lol Guess the Americans win this round. ;)

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:40 PM, C R wrote:

I included a reminder about the warranty it because it's included in big bold letters in the about information for GIMP. I have no basis for judging whether that's necessary or not, other than someone thought it was worth shouting digitally about. :)

-C

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Gez wrote:

El vie, 18-09-2015 a las 14:10 -0300, Gez escribió:

"The program itself is governed by the terms of the GNU General Public
License (GPL) which ensures that users have freedom to use the program
with any purpose, study and modify its source code and share modifications to the community. You are allowed and encouraged to share
the program with your friends and colleagues, install it in your school
or organization and use it for any purpose. If you're planning to modify the program and re-distribute it with your
modifications, make sure that you make the source code available too. That's the only obligation required by the license. Follow [this link] if you need more information abut the GNU General Public License."

I missed the "no warranty" bit. Is it really necessary? If yes, why? Is it some required legal waiver or just a kind way of saying "don't blame us if something went wrong and you lose your work"?

Personally I find that kind of stuff really unnecessary. It's like making an excuse in advance: "look, it may fail, don't blame us". If someone wants to sue you I don't think the "no warranty" claim will make any difference. But seriously, who would do that?

I've been working with software for 20 years, I've lost count of the times I've lost work because software failed, crashed or froze. I may or may not cursed the software and its makers when that happened, but never thought about suing the makers for the half hour of work I lost because I forgot to hit CTRL+S (or CTRL+E :-p)

That being said, GIMP is probably the most stable software I use, which makes that remark even more unnecessary.

Gez. _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On 09/18/15 08:38 PM, C R wrote:

what they want to know (use case) is not covered by the license in the first place.

It is not enough to just give them use case and a binary license. They must be informed on their rights and have option to display also source license.
It is requirement for distribution under GPL.

The point of the intro is not to advise them of ALL their rights in one paragraph. That's what the GNU license page is for, and also the FOSS link. Those are complete references to all their rights under the GPL, and they are included as links in this intro. So filling in the gaps with quick information solves immediate (question) problems in a way that dumping an entire page of legal jargon doesn't. :) We want our new users to feel safe using the software, and companies asking to use GIMP need to be told that they can do so clearly, and it will not affect their business in a negative way. You would be surprised how skittish companies are with licensing concerns. If it even LOOKS like it will cost them in terms of potential lawsuits, they will gladly go back to buying industry-trusted software packages. Strangely, we need to fill a gap in trust that is created by people not having to buy the software. The reason for this is we are conditioned to expect to have to buy everything, and if it's free, there's always some catch. It's odd and strange to walk into FOSS world form the corporate one. I want to get these companies (and professional users) up and going quickly with GIMP as fast and easily as possible, because it helps GIMP will become an industry standard tools. What we have gives them just enough information to get them going fast. That's the information you want on an intro page. Once they decide the software fits their needs, they will be more willing to explore the other advantages of the software in terms of modifying it, etc. Even this is mentioned in the intro, so it's not as if it's left out. :)

-C

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Nikola M wrote:

On 09/18/15 08:38 PM, C R wrote:

what they want to know (use case) is not covered by the license in the first place.

It is not enough to just give them use case and a binary license. They must be informed on their rights and have option to display also source license.
It is requirement for distribution under GPL.

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

18 сент. 2015 г. 21:15 пользователь "Nikola M" написал:

On 09/18/15 07:10 PM, Gez wrote:

I wonder if saying that the only license pertains to the source code. I'd say that the binaries are also covered by the license, since you are obligued to make the source code available when you distribute the binaries.

Source code is covered and source changes, if binaries are distributed. But binaries itself can have whatever licence one wants, if source and

source changes are available.

Where did you even get this idea from? :)

Alex

On 09/18/2015 08:15 PM, Nikola M wrote:

On 09/18/15 07:10 PM, Gez wrote:

I wonder if saying that the only license pertains to the source code. I'd say that the binaries are also covered by the license, since you are obligued to make the source code available when you distribute the binaries.

Source code is covered and source changes, if binaries are distributed. But binaries itself can have whatever licence one wants, if source and source changes are available.

You have yet to provide proof for this claim.

In case you missed it, your previous attempt at that is waiting for answers to Alexandre's reply.

Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD

El vie, 18-09-2015 a las 20:15 +0200, Nikola M escribió:

On 09/18/15 07:10 PM, Gez wrote:

I wonder if saying that the only license pertains to the source code.
I'd say that the binaries are also covered by the license, since you
are obligued to make the source code available when you distribute the
binaries.

Source code is covered and source changes, if binaries are distributed.
But binaries itself can have whatever licence one wants, if source and
source changes are available.
That is exactly what this thread is about - there is the difference.

No, you're wrong.
You're misinterpreting one the GPL terms that says that you're not obligued to publish your changes if you're not going to redistribute the modified program.
That means: If you change the code, you may use the software without publishing the modifications *IF* you're going to keep the program for yourself and nobody else.
But if you're going to give the modified program to someone else, you have to give them the modified sources as well. It has NOTHING to do with the license. The license for GPL licensed work is and will be always GPL unless you're the only person who wrote the original code and therefor you keep the right of re-licensing it to whatever license you want.
But you can't relicense somebody else's code which is under the GPL.

Gez.

El vie, 18-09-2015 a las 21:23 -0300, Gez escribió:

It has NOTHING to do with the license. The license for GPL licensed work is and will be always GPL unless you're the only person who wrote
the original code and therefor you keep the right of re-licensing it to
whatever license you want.

I stand myself corrected. In the above paragraph I made a mistake: If you're the rights holder of the original code you're free to distribute it with a different license. That's not the same than saying that you're free to re-license the GPL code. Once you freed it under the GPL terms, others are free to use it and you can't forbid them to do what the GPL allows. You can, however, use the same code in a program distributed with a different license, but that's because you hold the original rights, the GPL-licensed code stays GPL.

Gez.

Code stays GPL, code gets released, but in practice, binaries can include other glued blobs that are not GPL.(after compilation). Examples are Oracle Solaris and RedHat, SuSE etc. where binaries are available by user subscription/payment and binaries usage right are clearly different then GPL for source.

BINARIES that are distributed for GPL applications, in practice, does not necessary are fully made of GLP source code, because compilers can add binary blobs to them and only trust and internal and external audit stops compiling party for gluing who knows what into binaries, beside GPL code.
GPL is file-based source code free software licence,.you provide copy of the license to all users together with source code, but it is of trust of distributing party not to end up really with binary blobls attached.

Distributor of compiled parts holds the right to distribute or not distribute binaries providing their own distribution rights (Binary licence) for compiled work.
Ask Oracle and RedHat where they make money from. From having separate commercial rights for distributing binaries. (while providing source). This is why you are allowed to sell GPL programs binaries on the market price, this is exactly what Stallman was doing from day one. Everyone gets the source, everyone can contribute and re-release, just my distributed binaries cost that much of currency. And again, ask Oracle and RedHat what is the base of their business - distributing binaries that are licensed/have distributor rights to provide money for distributor.

There's nothing wrong to sell GPL based products copies and GPL clearly states that in the basic licence right. And in order to sell it, binaries behave like any other binaries and it is not the same as the code and user rights. If I have the right to sell it, I clearly have right to choose Not to sell it and that is supported by binary distribution rights of my own. (And one can call it license for binaries)

GLP is clearly commercial license that provides commercial use and saying it is non-commercial clearly violates GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney "You /can/ charge people a fee to get a copy /from you/ . You
can't require people to pay you when they get a copy /from someone else/." So it is not exclusive, but distributing copies from selling party can be priced and that is the base of being commercial.

Example where even one providing clean build environment can end up with a binary payload on binaries:
Reflections of trusting trust:
http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf

Where additionally, choosing the compiler and compiling switches and binary blobs chooses the final binaries contents.

Best way to being secure is to have trusted party audit and compile and provide binaries
and that is what GIMP like projects and trusted software distributions as trusted parties are for.
That kind of support and trust and ability to compile it itself, is what is actually valued and payed by the customer. Only value that is more valuable then that is ability to change software , to stay independent with changes and ability to add functionality and fix bugs directly in code.
And that is where , looking at it commercially, free software excels and is winning proprietary closed products. It is clearly much more valuable then proprietary licensed copies.
And GLP allows you to make money from it by distributing and supporting binaries for a price. (With your own distribution rights and that is clearly functionally the same as the binary license for your distributed binaries).

Sry for the length and late response, I mistakenly firstly responded to single person instead of the list.

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Gez > wrote:

El vie, 18-09-2015 a las 21:23 -0300, Gez escribió:

> It has NOTHING to do with the license. The license for GPL licensed > work is and will be always GPL unless you're the only person who > wrote
> the original code and therefor you keep the right of re-licensing it > to
> whatever license you want.

I stand myself corrected. In the above paragraph I made a mistake: If you're the rights holder of the original code you're free to distribute it with a different license. That's not the same than saying that you're free to re-license the GPL code. Once you freed it under the GPL terms, others are free to use it and you can't forbid them to do what the GPL allows. You can, however, use the same code in a program distributed with a different license, but that's because you hold the original rights, the GPL-licensed code stays GPL.

Gez.

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On 09/18/15 09:34 PM, C R wrote:

It's odd and strange to walk into FOSS world form the corporate one. I want to get these companies (and professional users) up and going quickly with GIMP as fast and easily as possible,

It would be great for new users to know that they can actually, actively change the product they are using. By reporting bugs, supporting bug fixing and financing it, reporting/suggesting RFE's that they can support by paying to be done, and otherwise be included in the user and developer community on equal basis. That could really show how more valuable and better TCO they get by actively using and participating in GIMP and other projects, where biggest value is participation and investing in maintenance and new features.

There is always an idea of having also supported payed for GIMP releases with support contracts but that needs to be separate entity/organization.