Understanding GPLv2

2: exactly the same as 1

3: yes, but usually no. If someone else contributed code to your project, or you use code from another GPL'd project, you need their permission. Another option is to have contributors transfer the copyright on their contributed code to you, then you can use any license you want. But if that license will be a proprietary one, most likely nobody will want to contribute anymore.

4: It doesn't matter much whether you bundle it or not. You can bundle proprietary software with GPL'd software, and that will be called "mere aggregation", and it won't be a problem. If you were bundling, you would need to include their copyright information with their files, this can (and probably would better) be a different file than the one that contains your own copyright information.
But you're not bundling. Now the question is whether your use of the command-line tool should be considered linking or not. If it is linking, you're obliged to use the GPL too, and nothing else as far as I know. If it isn't linking, you have no obligations at all.

I Am Not A Lawyer. Others please check my answers.

A new discussion draft of the GNU LGPL has been released, called GPLv3. The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each other. The only time you can't combine code under two of these licenses is when you want to use code that's only under an older version of a license with code that's under a newer version.

----
software reviews

I feel I should relay your experiences with the licensing department as criticism to the FSF. Something tells me certain improvements are in order so that they can come out to those seeking licensing advice more professionally.

Or maybe you could also try with the Software Freedom Law Center where Eben Moglen works.

As for the questions I believe tbuitenh is right on, but I'm not a lawyer nor a GPL expert either.

Hey guys, I had to email the FSF again after waiting patiently. I asked very politely, "Hi. Any luck on getting the following answered?" They responded with the following.

Hope this all helps you, guys.

QUESTIONS:

{ Background: My software in this case is a set of PHP pages that make up a website. The website is a framework that is intended to be customized by other programmers separate from my company, or to pay me to customize them. My software is entirely composed and copyrighted by my company and not based on the work of others (except for a small requirement for aspell command).}

1. If someone forks my code with intent to call it a different name and redistribute it, what are they obligated to do back for me?

You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

2. If someone forks my code with intent to call it a different name and redistribute it, and then add new features my program didn't have, can I take their changes and incorporate their new source for their new features back into my source, as long as I include the proper copyright notice from them and their GPL warranty and license information?

Yes. If you receive a copy of any GPL'd work, you may use it as permitted by the GPL (or by copyright law.)

3. My software depends on 'aspell' command-line GNU tool in order to work properly. What are my obligations to this copyright holder when I distribute my software and still require this dependency (but not ship the dependency with my application)?

The short answer for your case is: none. The more complete answer is this: If you form a derivative work with any GPL'd application, then you may only distribute that derivative work as a whole under the terms and conditions of the GPL.

4. Is the next quoted statement true or not true? "In this scenario, I have GPL software and have included GPL software from a customization made by someone else of my software. This is my latest 'package'. Now a company approaches me and wants a non-GPL license for something special. I am entitled to grant it to them for all my copyrighted pieces, but must get written permission from the other GPL software author for the customization to be included in this package for this company."

The above statement is true.

5. This next question isn't for me, but a friend. He asks, "What if I want to release GPL software properly for the last version, but only let paying customers get access to my latest stable version? Is that in compliance with the GPL?"

You may sell GPL licensed software - see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. However, I suspect that your friend wants to sell the software under a proprietary license. We charge to answer questions about proprietary software (at a rate of $300 USD/hour.) If your friend is interested, have them write us again with more details.

Well those seem like decent answers. I hope they helped you.

It's interesting that they charge $300 USD/hour for questions which involve proprietary licensing. Nice way to discourage it.

The thing is, you can charge for downloading of any GPLed software. That has never been a controversial point for the GPL (except when misunderstood). No matter if you charge for a distribution service (of any kind, be it a CD or a download) the user has the right to share it. If you don't want to give the right to share you can't use a GPL license for the newest version and hence it would be proprietary.

Still, I don't think it would be such a big issue if you have a smart strategy of encouraging people to get the latest version from you and for the price you ask instead of from someone else who already bought it. You can bundle a nice service with every purchase of the newest version as well as point out, nicely, that by buying it from you they support you as a company and hence a continued quality development of the software. Your kind of software is one that will likely be used by businesses and I think businesses actually are more likely to pay even if the it is available from a third party for free. They want a relationship with you as the source, not some third party, especially if they also want a support service from you.

Edit: Also think of the RedHat vs. Oracle case or even RedHat vs. White Box case. Neither did kill RedHats revenue stream and I doubt they even diminished it by a lot. Why? Because RedHat already built their case for the customers so customers even though they can get cheaper RHEL from Oracle (Unbreakabale Linux) or a free RHEL from White Box (WBEL, White Box Enterprise Linux), they still tend to decide to go to the source, which is RedHat.

So I think that the freedom for others to share for free what you're selling must kill your business is a myth propagated by the proprietary software industry. That freedom just means that you have to be more responsible and offer better value because the market is truly free and competition is more easily to rise, which is overall a good thing for progress.

Watch your wording. There are other free software licenses.

Well in essence it is correct because I didn't talk about other licenses, but of course, there are other Free Software licenses and you wouldn't be able to use those either if you want to restrict sharing.