From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-10-26 12:46:53
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2822894 By: neo_in_matrix AFAIK, somebody from m$ thinks that GPL is *viral*. I somewhat agree with this idea, in the sense that if you use GPL'ed software to produce your software, you will have to GPL it. And thus, anyone who creates further work based on your software still need to GPL his/her work, and so on... My understanding is that you can *sell* your source code for money or you must distribute your source code to end users if you want to charge for money, and at the same time do the *viral* thing - force your customers accept GPL. Can you get what I am saying? ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=286529 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-10-26 13:24:36
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2822957 By: keithmarshall You may use GCC (i.e. MinGW) to produce your software, without any requirement to GPL your code, *provided* you do not use any library which is released under the GPL, or otherwise link or embed any GPL component, which is required by your product. However, if you *do* link in any such library, or component, then you *must* publish your own code under the GPL too. This does not prohibit you from charging money for your product -- the requirement is that you make your source code available along with your object code and binaries. The principle involved is that you must grant users of your software the freedom to adapt it to their own needs, and possibly to improve it in the process. Of course, if they do so, and subsequently redistribute their modified version, then they must also grant this same freedom to other users. ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=286529 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-10-26 15:46:46
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2823385 By: infidel keithmarshall is correct. GCC is GPL but just because you compile your program using GCC does NOT mean that your program is bound by the GPL. It is only "viral" if you create a "derived work" from another GPL program, e.g. linking directly to a GPL'ed library. ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=286529 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-10-26 18:49:51
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2823624 By: schodmc Well, this is why the MinGW-Libs are released as public domain, right? When I use the default libraries of MinGW I have no problems not making my app open source? Or are there any MinGW-Libs released under GPL (except code compiled for GPROOF as I read on the MinGW homepage). ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=286529 |
From: John D. R. <jdr...@in...> - 2004-10-26 19:43:45
|
> Well, this is why the MinGW-Libs are released as public domain, right? > When I use the default libraries of MinGW I have no problems not making my > app open source? Or are there any MinGW-Libs released under GPL (except > code compiled for GPROOF as I read on the MinGW homepage). This is probably one of the basic reasons. Unless you use the profiling code, you should be free and clear. (You don't plan on distributing the w32api or making changes, right?) --John Ratliff |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-10-27 02:46:56
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2824012 By: aaronwl I would be extremely skeptical of anything and everything people tell you about the GPL. Its my perception that most people talking about the GPL have an inaccurate view of how the license works. If you are distributing GPL software, or creating works with it, it is important that you have a good, unbiased understanding of how it works. Besides reading it, you should read this: <http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>. Keep in mind a substantial part of what the GPL mandates, and what is stated on that FAQ page, is disputed. Many parts of the GPL may have been insufficiently "proven" in court. For example, many informed people feel like that GPL relies on an exclusive distribution right that, since its initial writing, has been shown to not exist. So, if you are using FSF-owned software, such as GCC, go ahead and peruse <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy>, then ask yourself the questions, "Is what I am doing in the spirit of the GPL? Would the FSF sue me if I did this?" (I am not a lawyer. Please make up your mind on your own; don't rely on me. If theres big money involved, please talk to your lawyer as well.) ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=286529 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-10-27 03:35:17
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2824043 By: neo_in_matrix I don't know. I never get much from reading those *FAQs* or something intended to be *easy* to understand. I really don't know how to make money from GPL'ed things. My understanding is that if you use gcc to produce software, you *must* *obey* the so-called *freedom* - include source code with your distribution and this *freedom* must also be *obeyed* by others that produce further work based on this software. ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=286529 |
From: Garthy <ga...@ho...> - 2004-10-27 04:14:17
|
SourceForge.net wrote: > I don't know. I never get much from reading those *FAQs* or something intended > to be *easy* to understand. I really don't know how to make money from GPL'ed > things. It sounds like you've given up on reading FAQs for whatever reason. You might have trouble finding people willing to help you if you don't do some of your own legwork first, but YMMV... You may have to do some research on your second point though, it doesn't sound like something covered in the mingw FAQ. ;) > My understanding is that if you use gcc to produce software, you *must* *obey* > the so-called *freedom* - include source code with your distribution and this > *freedom* must also be *obeyed* by others that produce further work based on > this software. Disregarding the GPL rant, I personally am most curious how you came to the use equals GPL license requirement conclusion, as it differs somewhat from my understanding. Having said that, I think Aaron said it best when he said: " I am not a lawyer. Please make up your mind on your own; don't rely on me. If theres big money involved, please talk to your lawyer as well." Perhaps if it affects you, you should consider this route? As for your other post, running delete[] on a void pointer is quite unusual. delete (and delete[]) operate quite differently from free(). delete triggers a destructor, delete[] triggers multiple ones, before dropping the memory like free() does. It might be a bit hard to destruct unknown objects. ;) Worse, void doesn't have a size, so trying to delete an array of these seems a bit odd. Anyway, this seems hugely OT (they seem to be gcc and GPL matters), so I should probably stop here. Garth |
From: Kuba O. <ku...@ma...> - 2004-10-27 13:32:45
|
On wtorek 26 pa=C5=BAdziernik 2004 11:35 pm, SourceForge.net wrote: > Read and respond to this message at: > https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3D2824043 > By: neo_in_matrix > > I don't know. I never get much from reading those *FAQs* or something > intended to be *easy* to understand. I really don't know how to make money > from GPL'ed things. > > My understanding is that if you use gcc to produce software Your understanding has been planted in your head by M$. It's as far from th= e=20 reality and facts as you could possibly get. Look man, GPL has nothing to do with use. You're free to send yourself to t= he=20 Moon or to use GPLd software (such as linux kernel or gcc) to control nucle= ar=20 submarines, just remember there's no warranty. GPL ONLY GOVERNS DISTRIBUTIO= N=20 AND INDICATES THAT THERE'S NO WARRANTY. PERIOD. If that is not clear enough= ,=20 I don't know what is. Triple sigh :( Cheers, Kuba Ober |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-10-27 04:58:14
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2824104 By: aaronwl I've come to find the unwritten rules and understandings behind the FSF's licenses to be arbitrary, counter-intuitive, and sometimes obsolete. For example, the FSF seems to consider header files to be generally uncopyrightable (unless theres nontrivial inline functions in them), while non-header files containing very much the same thing might be. Or (regarding the LGPL) certain methods of combination are considered linking, while others (which might be very similar) are not. In general, the FSF's rule is that if a GPL program only transforms an input file to an output file, the GPL does not apply to the output file, such as with GCC. However, if the translator includes part of itself in the output, then the entire output is considered to be part of the GPL. The latter was the case with the bison parser generator until relatively recently, until a special exception was made. Note that GCC also encorporates a small amount of its source code into executables, but these also have a special exception. Sometimes, the GPL or better yet LGPL are only an annoyance, and do not get in the way of a commercial program. For example, I have found the LGPL fairly palatable, provided one is willing to set up a dynamic linking mechanism, and make a written source offer (which noone will bother taking up if you haven't added anything anyway). I should point out that if you've thoroughly perused the FSF's philosophy section, and you ask really nicely, RMS (in his capacity as the head of the FSF) will answer some of your questions personally if you are unsure. Just don't type him a huge essay and expect him to respond to every point. :-) ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=286529 |
From: Garthy <ga...@ho...> - 2004-10-27 05:19:32
|
Aaron, > In general, the FSF's rule is that if a GPL program only transforms an input > file to an output file, the GPL does not apply to the output file, such as with > GCC. However, if the translator includes part of itself in the output, then > the entire output is considered to be part of the GPL. The latter was the case > with the bison parser generator until relatively recently, until a special exception > was made. Note that GCC also encorporates a small amount of its source code > into executables, but these also have a special exception. I thought the bison issue was fixed a bit back, but it was certainly an issue then. Having said that I ran into something similar in the auto-tools ("missing") which AFAICT was under GPL. This was fixed too, but caused me some hassles for a while. I'm not sure if it is as complex as the translator including part of itself in the output making it under GPL. I think it is more a matter that the use of a tool by and of itself won't put something under the scope of the license, but if you use the tool to embed something else under any license (eg. the bison skeleton which was GPL for a while) then you may have issues with the bison skeleton being under that license. Then again, that's just my opinion, check with a lawyer, etc etc. Garth |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-10-27 11:30:19
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2824491 By: neo_in_matrix Okay, just got an idea. The so touted idiom 'free as in freedom' is such a big irony in that it *forces* you to accept what is labeled as 'freedom'. They even foresee (or dream) that one day all software will be GPL'ed or OSS'ed. ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=286529 |
From: Benjamin R. <Ben...@ep...> - 2004-10-27 17:41:47
|
Hi SourceForge.net, "SourceForge.net" writes: > The so touted idiom 'free as in freedom' is such a big irony in that > it *forces* you to accept what is labeled as 'freedom'. It is free when seen against the backdrop of proprietary software like e.g. MS Word. The GPL limitations are intended as a guarantee that the freedom to use the source is not abused, but instead is propagated to derived works. E.g. MS used the BSD IP stack in Windows, but rarely, if ever, even acknowledges that. That couldn't legally happen with GPL code. GPL code doesn't help you write proprietary (closed source) code and the authors would say that that is a good thing. If they don't want to help you there, that is their rightfull choice. OTOH, the GPL is not a problem if your code is and will always be Open Source. benny |
From: Tor L. <tm...@ik...> - 2004-10-28 02:16:44
|
Benjamin Riefenstahl writes: > E.g. MS used the BSD IP stack in Windows, but rarely, if ever, even > acknowledges that. That couldn't legally happen with GPL code. Not with GPL, but sure could with LGPL. Wasn't the requirement to acknowledge the "Regents of the University of California" (the so-called advertising clause) something that was dropped from later BSD licenses? As far as I can see, the LGPL does not require any acknowledgements in promotional material, at run-time, or install time of software that uses LGPL libraries. Source code redistributions of LGPL code course has to be accompanied by the license. Excuse me if I am completely confused here... --tml |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-10-27 21:32:03
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2825541 By: johngaughan "I should point out that if you've thoroughly perused the FSF's philosophy section, and you ask really nicely, RMS (in his capacity as the head of the FSF) will answer some of your questions personally if you are unsure." I am one of the proud few that have been flamed personally by RMS :-) He is a nice guy, but from experience and what others say he has little tolerance for people who sound like they are critical of him or his philosophy. I cannot fault him though. I imagine if Bill Gates were more visible to the public he would get irritated with people being overly critical. At least RMS is accessible to the public. Anyway, the FSF has a knowledgable and helpful staff of underlings. I have asked them questions several times and received a thorough, professional answer. Sometimes it takes a while as they are mostly unpaid volunteers helping out in their spare time, but they will respond eventually. ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=286529 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-10-27 21:38:28
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2825552 By: johngaughan After following this thread for a few days, I noticed that nobody mentioned this site: http://www.opensource.org/ This is the site for OSI, the Open Source Initiative. It has information on a wide variety of licenses including the GPL, LGPL, and BSD. It gives the text of the licenses and describes what they mean. ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=286529 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-10-29 20:42:44
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2829024 By: padcom13 I think this part of GPL FAQ covers the question completely: "Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them? Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code. Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons--for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits the copyright status of the input. As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs. This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted use for non-free programs. " ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=286529 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-10-30 00:27:47
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2829235 By: neo_in_matrix Sounds it does. So I am allowed to develop commercial software. That's terrific. ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=286529 |
From: Kuba O. <ku...@ma...> - 2004-10-26 16:55:03
|
> AFAIK, somebody from m$ thinks that GPL is *viral*. I somewhat agree with > this idea, in the sense that if you use GPL'ed software to produce your > software, you will have to GPL it. That implies that the OP: 1. Didn't ever read GPL (with understanding) 2. Spreads FUD Unless by "use" the OP meant "incorporating the GPL code into your own". In which case some of the OPs statements are true. > Can you get what I am saying? Yes, but that's FUD. M$ would gladly hire you :) Cheers, Kuba Ober |
From: Garthy <ga...@ho...> - 2004-10-27 02:20:22
|
The mere use of a GPL tool puts you under no obligation whatsoever. The GPL covers distribution only. Thus you could use gcc (GPL) to build what you like, and release it under whatever terms you like. You could use lpr under Linux without all of your printouts becoming GPL licensed. Distribution or incorporation of GPL code requires acceptance of the GPL conditions, which generally requires that your code be released under the same terms. Thus, if you took the gcc source, modified it, and sold the compiler executable as your own, you need to provide the source (the GPL specifies acceptable ways to do this). The same if you borrowed a few routines from gcc and put them in your code. In short, using a GPL tool doesn't require you to relicense your code. Incorporating code from a tool, a GPL library, or similar, does. Oh, and Microsoft are hardly an unbiased party re the GPL. I'd be very wary of what "someone from m$" says, much as you should question the statements of anyone who has an interest in the results. Have a close read of the GPL some time when you have the chance. Whilst not trivial it is pretty light for lawyer-speak and spells things out fairly clearly. Garth SourceForge.net wrote: > AFAIK, somebody from m$ thinks that GPL is *viral*. I somewhat agree with this > idea, in the sense that if you use GPL'ed software to produce your software, > you will have to GPL it. And thus, anyone who creates further work based on > your software still need to GPL his/her work, and so on... |