Was wondering if it possible to take this browser and make my own proprietary version...say for a group of artists only. Designed for them in mind...etc.
Possible with this K-Meleon???
Please advise.
Thank you.
David

I am really not one to answer this question, but from what little knowledge I have on the subject the short answer is no. By that I mean you can change things, but you cannot make yours proprietary. We are, I think, open source.

Hanlon’s razor is an eponymous adage named after Robert J. Hanlon that states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

JamesD

In the license, it's clear for me that you can adapt K-Meleon to your needs, but you can't remove the copyright of K-Meleon, The new product must use the same license, and sources must be avalaible.

To answer clearly, you can't be the only proprietary of the new product.

A+

---

Mozilla/5.0 (x11; U; Linux x86_64; fr-FR; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Ubuntu/12.04 K-Meleon/76.0

---

Web: http://jujuland.pagesperso-orange.fr/
Mail : alain [dot] aupeix [at] wanadoo [dot] fr

---

Ubuntu 12.04 - Gramps 3.4.9 - Harbour 3.2.0 - Hwgui 2.20-3 - K-Meleon 76.0 rc

---

Quote
JujuLand
In the license, it's clear for me that you can adapt K-Meleon to your needs, but you can't remove the copyright of K-Meleon, The new product must use the same license, and sources must be avalaible. To answer clearly, you can't be the only proprietary of the new product. A+

It's not very clear for me this point if we talk about the unofficial versions of Kmeleon, according to the disclaimer of their dowload page: Responsible for unofficial distributions of K-Meleon are their respective issuers.NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.Use on your own risk.-. If nobody can't be the only propietary of the new products, it means that Kmeleon is also being responsible for the Kmeleon unnofficial versions too. Always IMHO.

o.O

Quote
margarita

Quote
JujuLand
In the license, it's clear for me that you can adapt K-Meleon to your needs, but you can't remove the copyright of K-Meleon, The new product must use the same license, and sources must be avalaible. To answer clearly, you can't be the only proprietary of the new product. A+

It's not very clear for me this point if we talk about the unofficial versions of Kmeleon, according to the disclaimer of their dowload page: Responsible for unofficial distributions of K-Meleon are their respective issuers.NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.Use on your own risk.-. If nobody can't be the only propietary of the new products, it means that Kmeleon is also being responsible for the Kmeleon unnofficial versions too. Always IMHO.

o.O

No, AFAIK. We are talking about Open Source.

The GNU licenses, some, let you to modify the code and create a new application, but, as the Creative Commons licenses, you MUST release the new application under the same license, but, that, doesn't mean that the original application is responsible of the next mods. It means that the new piece of software, as a GNU Open Source license software CAN'T make the code proprietary, or, in other words, close the source code.

Long story short, you can't proclaim the proprietary of a mod of another application if this was released under an open source GNU license.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2011 04:16PM by JohnHell.

David, if you remove the word "proprietary" from your original posting the answer is a resounding YES. If you really, really meant to use the P word then the answer is no.

If you want to make a private customized version you can do anything you like, but if you plan to distribute the thing publicly you'll need to include the relevant embedded copyright and license notices and make the source code available - respecting the GPL that K-Meleon and it's multiple components are released under.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

"the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."

My understanding of the situation...

Whether it's required or not, it is good etiquette to inform the authors that you will create a derivative work and follow any restrictions they may have, but if they restrict you in a way not included in the license, you do not have to follow that.

It is also good etiquette and ethical to credit the sources of your derivative work along with yourself who created the modifications. It is not ethical to pass the whole thing off as your creation. Not saying that you intended that, but there have been problems with people relabelling Kmeleon and passing it off as their own in the past, for profit. That's why it's good to get everything straight with the authors first, so there won't be any ugly misunderstandings. On the other hand, if you make any changes, they are your resposibility, and you can not pass it off as Kmeleon either since the owners of the project have no control over you. But - you can add it to the list of unofficial versions of kmeleon, of which there are already many peacefully coexisting with the official version.

As long as it's clear to users that it is mostly based on kmeleon and gives credit to the developers, while maintaining a separate identity, I think you are entitled and encouraged to make your own version. You can look at the unofficial versions already in existance for more guidance.

The word "propreitary" has special meaning in commerce and software, essentially it conveys unique ownership and the right to profit from. I am guessing you really just want to make a special purpose, tweaked kmeleon and distribute it to your community. I don't believe the developers of this project get paid for the substantial work of creating it. So, even if it is legal, I don't think it is ethical to profit from your own version.

Be nice if one of the devs would weigh in on this...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2011 04:01AM by snuz2.

Quote
JohnHell

Quote
margarita

Quote
JujuLand
In the license, it's clear for me that you can adapt K-Meleon to your needs, but you can't remove the copyright of K-Meleon, The new product must use the same license, and sources must be avalaible. To answer clearly, you can't be the only proprietary of the new product. A+

It's not very clear for me this point if we talk about the unofficial versions of Kmeleon, according to the disclaimer of their dowload page: Responsible for unofficial distributions of K-Meleon are their respective issuers.NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.Use on your own risk.-. If nobody can't be the only propietary of the new products, it means that Kmeleon is also being responsible for the Kmeleon unnofficial versions too. Always IMHO. o.O

No, AFAIK. We are talking about Open Source. The GNU licenses, some, let you to modify the code and create a new application, but, as the Creative Commons licenses, you MUST release the new application under the same license, but, that, doesn't mean that the original application is responsible of the next mods. It means that the new piece of software, as a GNU Open Source license software CAN'T make the code proprietary, or, in other words, close the source code. Long story short, you can't proclaim the proprietary of a mod of another application if this was released under an open source GNU license.

I thought that the availability of the mods in this website is what makes the main concept of the co-responsability, not the mods themselves.
o.O

Just to reply to JamesD and JohnHell, yes KMeleon is open source GNU General Public License, but the emphasis is on GNU General Public License, not the open source part.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kmeleon/develop

It is because of the GPL that proprietary derivatives cannot be made, because (as you all have mentioned) the GPL requires derivative works must also be licensed open under the GPL. But take note, that's all because of the GPL, not simply open source.

This is differentiated from other open source projects, eg. BSD licensed open source projects, which do not have "must remain open" clauses. Derivative works of these other open source projects can be made proprietary.

But again, since KMeleon is GPL-licensed, derivative works must remain open.

Quote
margarita

Quote
JohnHell

Quote
margarita

Quote
JujuLand
In the license, it's clear for me that you can adapt K-Meleon to your needs, but you can't remove the copyright of K-Meleon, The new product must use the same license, and sources must be avalaible. To answer clearly, you can't be the only proprietary of the new product. A+

It's not very clear for me this point if we talk about the unofficial versions of Kmeleon, according to the disclaimer of their dowload page: Responsible for unofficial distributions of K-Meleon are their respective issuers.NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.Use on your own risk.-. If nobody can't be the only propietary of the new products, it means that Kmeleon is also being responsible for the Kmeleon unnofficial versions too. Always IMHO. o.O

No, AFAIK. We are talking about Open Source. The GNU licenses, some, let you to modify the code and create a new application, but, as the Creative Commons licenses, you MUST release the new application under the same license, but, that, doesn't mean that the original application is responsible of the next mods. It means that the new piece of software, as a GNU Open Source license software CAN'T make the code proprietary, or, in other words, close the source code. Long story short, you can't proclaim the proprietary of a mod of another application if this was released under an open source GNU license.

I thought that the availability of the mods in this website is what makes the main concept of the co-responsability, not the mods themselves.
o.O

In fact, you are right. After read the sections 15 & 16 of the GNU GPL, the really problem here is to find in what an author is responsible of somethig. To be a propietary only means legal problems and no gains: nobody will pay you actually for a browser. Afterwards, being a propietary also makes you too much responsible of your software. However, all browsers are freeware, and most of them survive with severe merchandising methods and a complete advertisement control.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
http://chetangole.com/blog/2009/08/how-firefox-earns-money-the-earning-secrets-of-firefox/
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication-breakdown-10000030/how-operas-business-model-works-10012796/
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/how-do-google-make-money-from-google-chrome-web-browser-847416/

o.O