Re: [Amforth] GPLv3

[Erich W. <ew....@na...>]

Hello,

if I create some code under GPLv3, then this license extents to
"derived works". If someone wants to include my code into their
works, it could be a problem.

However, if I include some code under MIT, I can still publish
my code under GPLv3. That does NOT lead to the included file
change its license. I must not claim, the included code is mine.
If I made changes, I need to clearly document them, and the
original license still applies to said code including my
changes.

There is LGPL, such that you can link to my code without its
license extent to your code. But this "linking" does not apply
to Forth, because there is no linking.

There is AGPL, such that you cannot hide my GPL code as a
service behind a web interface.


You can still build your application using GPL components in the
form of say
- underlying OS (think linux or *BSD)
- supporting separate software components (think postgresql)
- loaded or linked to libraries and their header files (think glibc)
provided you distribute all this to your customer in the
preferred from of modifikation, i.e. source code. It does not
extend to your application code.

In my understanding, you cannot use GPL code, mix it into your
application source code, i.e. produce a derived work, and then
sell the result to a customer in compiled form without giving
away the complete code. That does not work, because in this case
you are producing a derived work. THIS is the exact purpose of
copy-left licenses. You shall not produce a "derived work" and
hide it's source code.


I'm still not a lawyer. But actually reading the license text
may help.


I will not agree to AmForth changing its license.
We had this discussion before, there is nothing new so far.



Cheers,
Erich



John Sarabacha <jsa...@gm...> writes:

> Hi Carsten,
> So if I wrote a Windows11 application and gave it a GPLv3 licensing and
> included
> the header file "windows.h",  it and all it's nested includes would now be
> GPLv3 and
> Microsoft is forced to release it's source code with any distribution.
> How long do you think it would take before Microsoft police would show up
> at my door?
> I am sure Linus (Linux creator) knew this as well.
>
> Again intended as a friendly exchange,
> Regards,
> John S
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 3:51 AM Carsten Strotmann via Amforth-devel <
> amf...@li...> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11 Feb 2026, at 9:32, John Sarabacha wrote:
>>
>> > dedicatedcomputer.ca/test
>> > Please examine the license terms on riscv_pal.h
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer, but in my experience with these kinds of questions,
>> "riscv_pal.h" is clearly part of the final product, included into
>> "dict_prims.c", which is "Licensing Compatible with AmForth (GPL3)", which
>> equals GPLv3, so "riscv_pal.h" must also be licensed under GPLv3.
>>
>> > If I supply this file it doesn't mean I give up my rights under this
>> > license.
>>
>> Well, from the nature of the license and the nature of the code, you've
>> placed the code in "riscv_pal.h" under GPLv3.
>>
>> > Sometimes this freeness is not always on equal terms. Some will take
>> > advantage.
>>
>> Yes, and that is why people choose GPLv3 to prevent that people take
>> advantage.
>>
>> Greetings
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/
>> Amf...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/
> Amf...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel

-- 
May the Forth be with you ...