ResearchSome Myths about the GPL
The GPL is the "GNU General Public License" and is the primary license model people mean when they say "open source", though it is actually a "free as in freedom" license as well. On any given open source system, it is the most common license found for a given application running there. The GPL has had it's share of misunderstandings in the past, even in the server room and corporate world, and this article means to clear up some misconceptions about the GNU General Public License.
MYTH: "The GPL is viral" - This comes from the GPL provision that modified versions of a GPL licensed program must also be licensed under the GPL. However, this does not extend to programs created using GPL tools. It is entirely possible, for example, to develop a closed-source application developed with GPL tools and not have the resulting work be GPL licensed.
MYTH: "The GPL is unenforceable." - While the Free Software Foundation tries to avoid knee-jerk court battles, preferring to work with the offender to help bring them into compliance, the GPL has been enforced in the courtroom when a legal claim became necessary.
MYTH: "You can't charge for GPL software." - Repeatedly, this misunderstanding comes from confusion about the definition of "free". The GPL stresses "free as in freedom", not "free as in cost". It is entirely possible to download a complete GPL system, then turn around and sell it to others! In fact, companies like Red Hat and Mandriva do just that, and make money because people would rather pay for a solution if they don't have the time to download the pieces and install it and configure it manually. In addition, profits can be made from GPL licensed software by offering support for it.
Distributors and source code. - Many misconceptions, here. You do not have to provide source-code only, source-code with every compiled program, or even post source code on your download server. You only need to make it available to the end-user, even by an offer to mail out CDs of the source code to those requesting it by mail, for instance, which is what many commercial distributors do. And, yes, you have to provide the source to everything you release under the GPL, and not just what you've offered.
MYTH: "GPL software means hard financial times for programmers." - there is a popular misconception out there that when we release all software free of charge, somehow no programmer will ever make money again. In fact, just the opposite is true: since sales of software products actually count for very little of a programmer's salary, programmers are still actively employed to develop new programs, fix old programs, be "in-house" developers for systems, provide technical support for systems, and other functions. One need only consider that HTML is "open source" (you can't help it; web browsers have to see the source code to the web page in order to display it!) yet web developers still get paid. In addition, open source creates new customers for other technology jobs, since new markets can now afford to be in business where none could afford the licensing on the restrictive proprietary equivalent. Far from being the economic doom of the software developer, technology workers have seen their wallets grow fatter rather than thinner thanks to open source software.