From: Daniel M. G. <dm...@uv...> - 2007-01-24 08:44:37
|
Hi Everybody, >> Summary of this message >> >> * GPL and panotools >> * Folding PT<binaries> into hugin >> I have been looking into the implications of the GPL, and it seems >> that (from the point of view of the FSF) if a program is run >> independently with no exchange of data structures, it does not break >> the spirit of the GPL (command line execution included). >> So command line execution by other tools seems to be a valid use. Pablo> Yes, this is true. And I think this is a situation that Pablo> everybody can live with. I don't mind if these programs are Pablo> used by others, as long as the use is compliant with the Good. Pablo> license. This is the case for PTAssembler, but not for PTGui, Pablo> since it links the pano12.dll directly. PTGui is therefore Pablo> violating the GPL. Since the pano12.dll code has been mostly Pablo> written by Helmut himself, this is not my problem. However, Indeed. Only the copyright holder can assert a copyright violation. As we place more and more code into the library we increase our copyright in it. We can't assert Helmut's copyright, but we can assert our copyright. Pablo> PTGui is moving from panotools to its own implementation, so I Pablo> guess it will never link to libpano13. Hopefully we will never have to see this situation. So summarizing, and let us see if we can agree to this as a clarification to the GPL (similar to what Linus Torvalds has done to clarify the relationship of proprietary programs to the GPL) The following IS A DRAFT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Clarification in the manner in which closed-source software can use libpano13. This statements not replace nor change way in which Panotools is licensed (GPL), but clarify some points that might be contentious. * We accept that other programs will use panotools binaries via fork/exec and this type of use will not be violation of the GPL license under which the panotools are licensed. * We will not accept direct linking unless the program that links to the library is also GPL. * We welcome distribution of binaries as long as the GPL conditions are satisfied, including: - Binary only distributions include the LICENSE (GPL license) and an offer to the source code - If the binaries are provided via Web/FTP, the source code (including makesfiles to create them) are also provided in the same place (not necessarily in the same file, but next to it). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Opinions? Max, this would mean that you are welcome to use panotools the way you have been doing it (via exec in your programs). The reason I'd like this clarification is that it makes it clear to everybody (OSS developers and commercial developers) what their rights and obligations are. And it erases the cloudiness under which the panotools have been used. Pablo> As for PTAssembler, I know that it is a lot of work to develop a GUI, often Pablo> more work than the code in the background. Therefore I can understand that I _totally_ agree with this statement. Max, I have never underestimated the work you have done with PTassembler. It is not easy work. Pablo> people might want to get monetary compensation for that. While I disagree Pablo> with Max, that PTassembler is not a panotools derivative in common terms Pablo> (PTassembler would be useless without panotools), I think the fact that Max Pablo> actively developed panotools (and still is) is kind of a win-win situation. I also agree with this. -- Daniel M. German "Nothing exists except atoms and empty Democritos -> space; everything else is opinion." http://turingmachine.org/ http://silvernegative.com/ dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca replace (at) with @ and (dot) with . |