GPL code on CP?
-
Of course. I do apologise for not pointing that out. I was merely responding to the previous post, unfortunately I generalised a bit. However, I'd be fairly certain that most people who use code from these articles are not writing GPL applications. I hope it didn't offend too much :~ Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
-
Heh I've got a skin as thick as an elephant :-D Nothing better for me on a friday than to argue GPL <-> LGPL <-> closed license :-D
:-D Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
-
Ryan Binns wrote: If a library is released under the GPL, then any program that uses it must also be released under the GPL. IMO, this is unacceptable for most commercial software. And this is exactly the reason why LGPL was born. :) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
yep :) Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
-
A poor article usually indicates that the person responsible for it isn't that bright and might have missed important things when researching the subject. Therefor I'm inclined to continue to look for another source of information. Concerning case #2, well written large projects/components, then I agree totally with you. (With the exception of writing a GPL application which another post pointed out.) "was wir auch tun, wohin wir gehen die illuminaten sind im system sie kontrollieren überall und 23 ist ihre zahl!" 23, welle: erdball
Stefan Pedersen wrote: A poor article usually indicates that the person responsible for it isn't that bright and might have missed important things when researching the subject. Therefor I'm inclined to continue to look for another source of information. Point conceded ;), although I'll probably still look at the code. I find that looking at a number of sources (no matter how badly written) tends to make the process of writing the code easier. Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
-
GPL beleives that no proprietary code should be legal. ""
Not good enough. Can you supply a reference? I agree that that there are Open Source supporters that believe what you state (proprietary code = evil). I too think they are full of it.
Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made of iron. -
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Which if you read the license and the explaination of what they interpret linking to be (any usage of any functions compiled into your code or used at runtime by your code is linking) which means that any software that runs on linux is also GPL Where did you get that idea? Sounds like BS to me.
Shawn Horton wrote: Where did you get that idea? The interpretation of where this line of thought goes is yes mine. But the interpretation of what linking means comes from their lawyer, who is the one going to be leading the lawsuit against you. If you want more see if you can get transcriptions of the MySQL lawsuit. The comments come from that trial. Which although maybe different the statement of what linking means comes from the lawyers representing the Free Software Foundation. Shawn Horton wrote: Sounds like BS to me. Yes, I agree, many legal interpretations are. ""
-
GPL doesn't believe anything. Stallman might ;) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: GPL doesn't believe anything. OK, then their legal staff, then. See my reply to Shawn. ""
-
Not good enough. Can you supply a reference? I agree that that there are Open Source supporters that believe what you state (proprietary code = evil). I too think they are full of it.
Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made of iron.Bruce Duncan wrote: Not good enough. Can you supply a reference? See my reply to Shawn. I do not have a web link. If you want more see if you can get transcriptions of the MySQL lawsuit. The comments come from that trial. Which although maybe different the statement of what linking means comes from the lawyers representing the Free Software Foundation. ""
-
I think people are getting confused between the GPL and LGPL licenses. The GPL does not allow people to include the code inside other programs, unless the other program is also released under the GPL (must distribute full source code etc...). This is not much use for commercial programs The LGPL does allow this, and is the one that (I think) should be used for code libraries, unless the author specifically does not want it to be used in commercial software, in which case, why are they submitting it to a site for professional developers? I hope this clarifies some confusion or perhaps it creates more... :) Ryan He who laughs last thinks too slowly.
In reality LGPL is a very badly written, overly broad yet simultaneously horribly vague license that will rightly give your legal department fits, if they ever bothered to read it. Many of its claims, as those of the GPL, are legally questionable and have not been tested in court. For example, it contains absurdities like: "2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it.... c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." Other parts state that you are free to change the licensing requirements of your software to GPL but once you do so, you cannot change the licensing again (most legal scholars who've written on this agree that this is probably indefensible in court, but who can afford the time, hassles and money to go to court to prove this?) CP should probably simply require the ZLib license: http://opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php[^]
-
I was under the impression that code on CP was intended to be free for any usage.. or rather, that CP is supposed to be a place where programmers freel yshare their code and knowledge. I just came across an article whose code is supposedly GPL'd. Is this kosher?
Let me give you an example of an article I wrote[^] that includes GPL code: I contribute to a project that is GPL. You can like it or not, but I find CVS a useful program and I fixed some bugs in it that relate to some severe bugs in the way NTFS handles dates and times on files. I thought others would be interested in how I worked around the Microsoft bug, so I posted an article and illustrated it with a snippet from the CVS source. Because CVS is GPL and my code derives from the CVS code, I cannot remove GPL from the example code I posted unless I were to rewrite it completely. I was too lazy to do that, but still thought it would be useful for CP'ers. I would think that it would be useful for people to see HOW to work around the NTFS date/time bug and the code is sufficiently simple that it would be straightforward for others who want proprietary versions to roll their own interpretation of the ideas I present. If this article were pulled because of a ban on GPL, would you really find life easier without the explanation of how to work around the NTFS date/time bug? Jonathan Why couldn't Science, in the long run, serve As well as one's uncleared lunch-table or Mme X en Culottes de Matador? James Merrill
-
Shawn Horton wrote: Where did you get that idea? The interpretation of where this line of thought goes is yes mine. But the interpretation of what linking means comes from their lawyer, who is the one going to be leading the lawsuit against you. If you want more see if you can get transcriptions of the MySQL lawsuit. The comments come from that trial. Which although maybe different the statement of what linking means comes from the lawyers representing the Free Software Foundation. Shawn Horton wrote: Sounds like BS to me. Yes, I agree, many legal interpretations are. ""
(any usage of any functions compiled into your code or used at runtime by your code is linking) which means that any software that runs on linux is also GPL. :omg::omg:Wow, I do not know that. That is shocking.:eek::eek:
-
Shawn Horton wrote: Where did you get that idea? The interpretation of where this line of thought goes is yes mine. But the interpretation of what linking means comes from their lawyer, who is the one going to be leading the lawsuit against you. If you want more see if you can get transcriptions of the MySQL lawsuit. The comments come from that trial. Which although maybe different the statement of what linking means comes from the lawyers representing the Free Software Foundation. Shawn Horton wrote: Sounds like BS to me. Yes, I agree, many legal interpretations are. ""
Hello Shawn, I just asked some Linux experts in my company. They said that the mentioned problem by you Shawn is only applicable for MySQL ONLY. Linux is still ok. That is why you don't see MySQL in Linux but Postgress. Meaning that you could write any software on Linux without getting your written software GPL. Unless that you had modified the content of Linux source code or using some Linux source code in your program. Then, you just disclose the modified and added Linux source code ONLY and not the entire source code. Linux or GPL is still a good thing I feel. :)
-
Hello Shawn, I just asked some Linux experts in my company. They said that the mentioned problem by you Shawn is only applicable for MySQL ONLY. Linux is still ok. That is why you don't see MySQL in Linux but Postgress. Meaning that you could write any software on Linux without getting your written software GPL. Unless that you had modified the content of Linux source code or using some Linux source code in your program. Then, you just disclose the modified and added Linux source code ONLY and not the entire source code. Linux or GPL is still a good thing I feel. :)
Well, I do not want to get into an argument, just passing on what my counsel has said and after reading the license myself I agree with. From the Linux.org site[^]: they state this work uses the GNU General Public License. From the last paragraph in the GNU General Public License[^]: This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License. Given this paragraph stating that if you want to allow linking you should use the LGPL license and not this one, and Linux stating this license, and the legal council for the Free Software Foundation (The principle sponsor of GNU) has stated linking includes usage of runtime services. I do not feel I am incorrect in my original statement. If you can show me a page where the Linux organization has modified the license or clarified they do not consider linking in the same light, I would love to see it. So do what you feel is best for your situation. I am doing the same. :rose: ""
-
Well, I do not want to get into an argument, just passing on what my counsel has said and after reading the license myself I agree with. From the Linux.org site[^]: they state this work uses the GNU General Public License. From the last paragraph in the GNU General Public License[^]: This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License. Given this paragraph stating that if you want to allow linking you should use the LGPL license and not this one, and Linux stating this license, and the legal council for the Free Software Foundation (The principle sponsor of GNU) has stated linking includes usage of runtime services. I do not feel I am incorrect in my original statement. If you can show me a page where the Linux organization has modified the license or clarified they do not consider linking in the same light, I would love to see it. So do what you feel is best for your situation. I am doing the same. :rose: ""
cheer up, just want to share my opinion. So, you are saying Linux still ok on writing application that running on top of it or how?