GPL for DLL's?
-
Hi, I asked someone at the Free Software Foundation this question, wasn't entirely satisfied with the answer and was really keen to get the input from CP members. Let's say that I develop a commercial product using my own code and I provide an API that allows the end user to develop plugin DLL's for various integration tasks. If the end user develops a plugin that essentially wraps GPL'ed code (maybe he found GPL code that does what he wants it to do), is the entire product now subject to the GPL requirements or simply just the plugin DLL? I would guess that only the plugin needs to be published under the GPL, not the entire product. Your thoughts? Btw the FSF guy said the entire product must be released under the GPL.
The FSF guy is correct. The entire product must be released under GPL, but only from the end users point of view. If an end user applies wraps a GPL version of code, then they cannot place restrictions on you as the developer. In other words, if the end user tries to sell the derived product on, the derived product is subject to GPL. The only time you would need to comply is if you took their code in and used it as part of your distribution. At this point in time, you become subject to the GPL licenses. This is one of the reasons that I hate GPL. It's just so viral.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Just the DLL. If I write a Windows Explorer extension, and use GPL'd code, by his argument, Microsoft would then be forced to release the whole Windows codebase under GPL.
Good point, rather obvious now that you've put it that way.
-
Hi, I asked someone at the Free Software Foundation this question, wasn't entirely satisfied with the answer and was really keen to get the input from CP members. Let's say that I develop a commercial product using my own code and I provide an API that allows the end user to develop plugin DLL's for various integration tasks. If the end user develops a plugin that essentially wraps GPL'ed code (maybe he found GPL code that does what he wants it to do), is the entire product now subject to the GPL requirements or simply just the plugin DLL? I would guess that only the plugin needs to be published under the GPL, not the entire product. Your thoughts? Btw the FSF guy said the entire product must be released under the GPL.
I think you could make an argument that the DLL is not technically a derivative work since you're simply using the GPL'd code and not "extending" it. On the other hand, you could wrapp the GPL'd code in a DLL and then use that DLL from within your own. Problem solved. You then only have to GPL the wrapper DLL.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Hi, I asked someone at the Free Software Foundation this question, wasn't entirely satisfied with the answer and was really keen to get the input from CP members. Let's say that I develop a commercial product using my own code and I provide an API that allows the end user to develop plugin DLL's for various integration tasks. If the end user develops a plugin that essentially wraps GPL'ed code (maybe he found GPL code that does what he wants it to do), is the entire product now subject to the GPL requirements or simply just the plugin DLL? I would guess that only the plugin needs to be published under the GPL, not the entire product. Your thoughts? Btw the FSF guy said the entire product must be released under the GPL.
i'd say you're right. the LGPL specifically addresses this issue; it allows people to write GPL'd libs that can then be used in other apps without needing to bring the main app under the full GPL. the FSF idealists talk down the LGPL because it's not pure enough for them.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Hi, I asked someone at the Free Software Foundation this question, wasn't entirely satisfied with the answer and was really keen to get the input from CP members. Let's say that I develop a commercial product using my own code and I provide an API that allows the end user to develop plugin DLL's for various integration tasks. If the end user develops a plugin that essentially wraps GPL'ed code (maybe he found GPL code that does what he wants it to do), is the entire product now subject to the GPL requirements or simply just the plugin DLL? I would guess that only the plugin needs to be published under the GPL, not the entire product. Your thoughts? Btw the FSF guy said the entire product must be released under the GPL.
RichardBrock wrote:
I would guess that only the plugin needs to be published under the GPL, not the entire product. Your thoughts?
I believe the FSF guy is full of himself. Since you, the original developer of the commercial product, does not distribute the plugin, did not develop the plugin, someone else cannot change your license. There are many adobe photoshop plugins that are GPL'd without forcing Adobe to give up their commercial license and distribute the their commercial code. However, if you distribute the plugin, now things get dicey. It could be said that you developed the plugin system to get around the GPL, and by distributing the plugin as an integral part of your application, then you deliberately violating the GPL. No one can change your license, you however, cannot distribute the GPL plugin as a feature of your application.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Hi, I asked someone at the Free Software Foundation this question, wasn't entirely satisfied with the answer and was really keen to get the input from CP members. Let's say that I develop a commercial product using my own code and I provide an API that allows the end user to develop plugin DLL's for various integration tasks. If the end user develops a plugin that essentially wraps GPL'ed code (maybe he found GPL code that does what he wants it to do), is the entire product now subject to the GPL requirements or simply just the plugin DLL? I would guess that only the plugin needs to be published under the GPL, not the entire product. Your thoughts? Btw the FSF guy said the entire product must be released under the GPL.
RichardBrock wrote:
Btw the FSF guy said the entire product must be released under the GPL.
Well, what would you expect him to say ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
RichardBrock wrote:
Btw the FSF guy said the entire product must be released under the GPL.
Well, what would you expect him to say ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
I guess whatever makes sense for both the end user and the commercial entity. If his answer went along the lines of what Mr Brickley said, I'd be happy with that. Just simply stating that your product would need to be released under the GPL is nuts, that underscores the thinking that the GPL is something like a virus, to protect my company I would have to encrypt my API. Thanks to all for the input, definitely creates some clarity around the issue.
-
I guess whatever makes sense for both the end user and the commercial entity. If his answer went along the lines of what Mr Brickley said, I'd be happy with that. Just simply stating that your product would need to be released under the GPL is nuts, that underscores the thinking that the GPL is something like a virus, to protect my company I would have to encrypt my API. Thanks to all for the input, definitely creates some clarity around the issue.
See, that's what YOU would like to say. Someone who works for the 'Free Software Foundation', is probably rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of someone stealing your livelihood to suit his hippy ideals.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
I guess whatever makes sense for both the end user and the commercial entity. If his answer went along the lines of what Mr Brickley said, I'd be happy with that. Just simply stating that your product would need to be released under the GPL is nuts, that underscores the thinking that the GPL is something like a virus, to protect my company I would have to encrypt my API. Thanks to all for the input, definitely creates some clarity around the issue.
RichardBrock wrote:
Just simply stating that your product would need to be released under the GPL is nuts, that underscores the thinking that the GPL is something like a virus, to protect my company I would have to encrypt my API.
That is the difference between a legal reading of the GPL, and the purpose of the FSF. The FSF has a purpose to get all software released free. Therefore, per their purpose, they would, of course, say you must release your product for free. That is just to be expected. They do look at themselves as a virus, slowly spreading through the world until all software is free. Rather a depressing self-image if you ask me, but they are proud of it. :~
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
See, that's what YOU would like to say. Someone who works for the 'Free Software Foundation', is probably rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of someone stealing your livelihood to suit his hippy ideals.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
"to suit his hippy ideals.", nope : to suit his COMMUNISM ideals ! GPL addicts' favorite claim is : "All your code belongs to us !" If they dared to make the addition GPLed, imagine that every part of code should be now 'open' for their own benefit ! Kochise
In Code we trust !
-
See, that's what YOU would like to say. Someone who works for the 'Free Software Foundation', is probably rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of someone stealing your livelihood to suit his hippy ideals.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax"
I did that once in college. One of my classmates upstaged me :mad: by slapping a VB6 GUI while I did a direct port of the command line app. Hooray for textbooks with 30 year old code in the appendix. There was the 100liner I ported from Fortran, a 30 pager that I ran with minimal modification (hard coded a half dozen inputs since I had to run if a few hundred times) because the IT dept finally got the fortran compiler working on the computer lab. We never used it, but there was also a basic app written in a dialect so old it contained line numbers. :wtf:
-- CleaKO The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything [about the problem]. Pete O`Hanlon Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?
-
Hi, I asked someone at the Free Software Foundation this question, wasn't entirely satisfied with the answer and was really keen to get the input from CP members. Let's say that I develop a commercial product using my own code and I provide an API that allows the end user to develop plugin DLL's for various integration tasks. If the end user develops a plugin that essentially wraps GPL'ed code (maybe he found GPL code that does what he wants it to do), is the entire product now subject to the GPL requirements or simply just the plugin DLL? I would guess that only the plugin needs to be published under the GPL, not the entire product. Your thoughts? Btw the FSF guy said the entire product must be released under the GPL.
The FSF guy is right technically, as I understand things. However there's an issue here: Your product doesn't *require* the plug-in. I believe the GPL makes some issue about this somewhere in the license. Your product doesn't *distribute* the plug-in. You didn't write the plug-in. That's why the LGPL license arose, to work around this kind of idiocy for third party library writers. All in all, this is yet more evidence of how brain dead the GPL is.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
Christian Graus wrote:
"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax"
I did that once in college. One of my classmates upstaged me :mad: by slapping a VB6 GUI while I did a direct port of the command line app. Hooray for textbooks with 30 year old code in the appendix. There was the 100liner I ported from Fortran, a 30 pager that I ran with minimal modification (hard coded a half dozen inputs since I had to run if a few hundred times) because the IT dept finally got the fortran compiler working on the computer lab. We never used it, but there was also a basic app written in a dialect so old it contained line numbers. :wtf:
-- CleaKO The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything [about the problem]. Pete O`Hanlon Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?
I remember on the Apple ][, a program that would renumber your app, so you'd start with 10, 20, 30, and you'd use 15 to put a new line in, but eventually, you would sometimes run out of numbers. So, you'd renumber the app, and start again. Those were the days....
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
"to suit his hippy ideals.", nope : to suit his COMMUNISM ideals ! GPL addicts' favorite claim is : "All your code belongs to us !" If they dared to make the addition GPLed, imagine that every part of code should be now 'open' for their own benefit ! Kochise
In Code we trust !
Yeah, but then I'd sound like Stan....
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Hi, I asked someone at the Free Software Foundation this question, wasn't entirely satisfied with the answer and was really keen to get the input from CP members. Let's say that I develop a commercial product using my own code and I provide an API that allows the end user to develop plugin DLL's for various integration tasks. If the end user develops a plugin that essentially wraps GPL'ed code (maybe he found GPL code that does what he wants it to do), is the entire product now subject to the GPL requirements or simply just the plugin DLL? I would guess that only the plugin needs to be published under the GPL, not the entire product. Your thoughts? Btw the FSF guy said the entire product must be released under the GPL.
I think that earlier versions (>5 years ago) of the GPL were so infectious that this would have been (or seemed to have been) the case. I remember writing to FSF/GNU that this makes it impossible to do release any Windows application under the GPL, or use any GPL-ed code with Windows, because there is no access to Windows source code. I never got a response, but the GPL was modified about a year after that. As mentioned above, the LGPL (lesser or library GPL) specifically covers things like this, where you would only have to release code to any changes made to the library itself, not the application using it. I think that if you look at the wording of recent copies of the GPL today, this kind of thing is covered. Peace!
-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
I remember on the Apple ][, a program that would renumber your app, so you'd start with 10, 20, 30, and you'd use 15 to put a new line in, but eventually, you would sometimes run out of numbers. So, you'd renumber the app, and start again. Those were the days....
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
I thought that there was a
renumbercommand that would do this...? Peace!-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
Hi, I asked someone at the Free Software Foundation this question, wasn't entirely satisfied with the answer and was really keen to get the input from CP members. Let's say that I develop a commercial product using my own code and I provide an API that allows the end user to develop plugin DLL's for various integration tasks. If the end user develops a plugin that essentially wraps GPL'ed code (maybe he found GPL code that does what he wants it to do), is the entire product now subject to the GPL requirements or simply just the plugin DLL? I would guess that only the plugin needs to be published under the GPL, not the entire product. Your thoughts? Btw the FSF guy said the entire product must be released under the GPL.
Jim is right, the GPL covers the entire product, LGPL was specifically created as a "DLL-only GPL".
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
Just the DLL. If I write a Windows Explorer extension, and use GPL'd code, by his argument, Microsoft would then be forced to release the whole Windows codebase under GPL.
You can't release a Shell Extension under GPL.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
I remember on the Apple ][, a program that would renumber your app, so you'd start with 10, 20, 30, and you'd use 15 to put a new line in, but eventually, you would sometimes run out of numbers. So, you'd renumber the app, and start again. Those were the days....
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
I thought that there was a
renumbercommand that would do this...? Peace!-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFilesNo, it was a program. I think it came from Beagle Bros.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )