GPL for DLL's?
-
"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 )
-
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 think you can, at least now. I think the GPL now has language that specifically excludes things like OS-specific libraries from the GPL infection.
GPL states:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
**_However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable._**This addition gets around things like RTL libraries, OS APIs, etc. 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 -
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.
Because Windows Explorer is "normally distributed with the major components of the operating system" that your extension could be distributed on its own under the GPL. (Section 3 of the GPL.) Unfortunatly there doesn't seem to be any such exclusion covering extensions or plug-ins for programs that are not distributed with the OS, so a plug-in containing GPL code for a non-GPL application can't be distributed.
-
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 )
-
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
Of course he did. :rolleyes: Seriously unless you want to drink the coolaid and join that cult avoid the GPL like the plague. If you don't you'll end up just as bat shit insane as Stallman.
-
RichardBrock wrote:
Btw the FSF guy said the entire product must be released under the GPL
Of course he did. :rolleyes: Seriously unless you want to drink the coolaid and join that cult avoid the GPL like the plague. If you don't you'll end up just as bat shit insane as Stallman.
John Cardinal wrote:
as bat sh*t insane as Stallman
I'll have you know the bats that live in my attic find your comparison highly offensive, and insist upon an immediate retraction and apology.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
I think you can, at least now. I think the GPL now has language that specifically excludes things like OS-specific libraries from the GPL infection.
GPL states:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
**_However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable._**This addition gets around things like RTL libraries, OS APIs, etc. 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 DeleteFXPFilesThat actually sounds reasonable... :confused:
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!