EiffelStudio "GPL" license

I understand that the runtime of the programs produced with
EiffelStudio include its code, and therefore are derived work.
However, GPL doesn't require people to only use it for non-commercial
purposes.

Case in point: I can take Linux (GPL), modify it to my heart's
content, use it to host an e-commerce web site and never release any
source to anybody.

How can EiffelSoftware claim that EiffelStudio "GPL" is under GPL, and
yet demand that the users release their sources under an Open Source
license?

Does EiffelStudio "GPL" add specific license provisions to the EULA on
top of the GPL (making it non-GPL) ?

On 14 Mai, 15:12, "jhc0...@gmail.com" <jhc0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Case in point: I can take Linux (GPL), modify it to my heart's
> content, use it to host an e-commerce web site and never release any
> source to anybody.

Yes. Haven't read the GPL3 yet, but i think this is not so easy with
GPL3
anymore.

> How can EiffelSoftware claim that EiffelStudio "GPL" is under GPL, and
> yet demand that the users release their sources under an Open Source
> license?
>
> Does EiffelStudio "GPL" add specific license provisions to the EULA on
> top of the GPL (making it non-GPL) ?

AFAIK no. Sometimes companies write bullshit in there EULA's and hope
everybody
take if for granted. Like QT and the stupid you can't develop a
commerical app
with using the GPL version and change to the commerical version when
you start shipping.

Here i see the same. A good idea would also be to write an own runtime
(if i ever have
to switch from SmartEiffel i have to do it anyway) under a free
license.

"jhc0033@gmail.com" <jhc0033@gmail.com> writes:

> I understand that the runtime of the programs produced with
> EiffelStudio include its code, and therefore are derived work.
> However, GPL doesn't require people to only use it for non-commercial
> purposes.
>
> Case in point: I can take Linux (GPL), modify it to my heart's
> content, use it to host an e-commerce web site and never release any
> source to anybody.

You can do the same thing with the GPL-Eiffel. Nobody will notice that you are
using it commercially. (You can also copy Windows/95 so that it works, but it
doesn't make it legal) I'd see it that way.

>
> How can EiffelSoftware claim that EiffelStudio "GPL" is under GPL, and
> yet demand that the users release their sources under an Open Source
> license?

Did you know that Windows/XP Home is the same as Windows/XP Professional, but
only with several functions disabled. Now "Home" is not cheaper, but
"Professional" is more expensive. Did you ever complain about that? (In Vista
it's worse). As Murphy said: "Those with the gold make the rules".
Why not either accepting it (the licence conditions) or not using it?
Instead of being happy to have something for free, your are complaining that
it's not free enough for you.

>
> Does EiffelStudio "GPL" add specific license provisions to the EULA on
> top of the GPL (making it non-GPL) ?

I'm afraid the outcome of all this will be a more complicated license...

Regards,
Ulrich