You're either extremely knowledgeable about the GPL, or I think you have misunderstood the GPL.
The GPL v2 does not mean you cannot charge for re-distribution of GPL code (there are companies who charge for the re-distribution of linux on dvds). If your code is bound to GPL libraries and you distribute that combined artifact then you might have issues. If your code calls out to compiled programs (using shell() then there is no issue). A very strict interpretation is that if your code is bound to libraries, then you are bound to provide your souce should someone demand it, or cease using the libraries in that case. There are those who dispute that even binding to libraries does not fall within the GPL v2. GPL v3 was brought in to stop so many companies "exploiting" GPL on the server-side (i.e. where there is no re-distribution of code). Unless the code you want to use to provide such a web service is licensed under GPL v3, I cannot see what the issue would be. I know of very few projects using GPL v3. And not all open source licenses have the same copyleft implications as the GPL. If you are distributing RunRev's ssl library with your apps, you are re-distributing open source code (only this time it is the Apache license + SSL license). It is always possible that companies negotiate a separate non-GPL license for GPL code they wish to incorporate and re-distribute. Anyway, I hope the first suggestion works for you so that you do not even need to consider these issues. Bernard On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Graham Samuel <livf...@mac.com> wrote: since mine is a commercial product, there would presumably be licensing issues for a non-GNU developer. _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode