Thread: [Audacity-devel] GPL interpretation
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Dominic M. <do...@mi...> - 2003-09-22 08:42:28
|
Now that we've successfully separated out the VST code from Audacity, there's one small technical detail we need to work out: the libmad authors agreed in principle that it is not a GPL violation to distribute a binary version of a GPL program that allows linking to non-free plug-ins. However, we should make this explicit somewhere in the README and/or LICENSE file, and get approval for this wording from Rob Leslie and the libmad folks. Matt, would you like to take a crack at this? The only other GPL library we link to is SoundTouch. Olli already gave us permission to link SoundTouch to VST, so clearly he doesn't have any problems with this, but as a courtesy we should explain to him our final decision, too, and make sure he's happy with our wording. Also, I know this is extremely unlikely, but if there's anyone out there who has contributed actual GPL'd code to Audacity and does NOT believe that we should be able to distribute binaries that allow non-free plug-ins, please speak up. I hope that isn't the case, though...I already went to a LOT of trouble to replace libsamplerate and separate out VST support. - Dominic |
From: Dave F. <dav...@co...> - 2003-09-30 06:00:06
|
All, I realize you guys already settled this issue, but I recently saw a post on slashdot that puts an interesting twist on it. (Ok, I wrote the post) Just some food for thought... http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=80370&cid=7091511 Dave On Monday 22 September 2003 01:49 am, Dominic Mazzoni wrote: > Now that we've successfully separated out the VST code from > Audacity, there's one small technical detail we need to work > out: the libmad authors agreed in principle that it is not a > GPL violation to distribute a binary version of a GPL program > that allows linking to non-free plug-ins. However, we should > make this explicit somewhere in the README and/or LICENSE file, > and get approval for this wording from Rob Leslie and the > libmad folks. > > Matt, would you like to take a crack at this? > > The only other GPL library we link to is SoundTouch. Olli > already gave us permission to link SoundTouch to VST, so > clearly he doesn't have any problems with this, but as a > courtesy we should explain to him our final decision, too, > and make sure he's happy with our wording. > > Also, I know this is extremely unlikely, but if there's anyone > out there who has contributed actual GPL'd code to Audacity and > does NOT believe that we should be able to distribute binaries > that allow non-free plug-ins, please speak up. I hope that > isn't the case, though...I already went to a LOT of trouble > to replace libsamplerate and separate out VST support. > > - Dominic > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel -- "Refuse to be denied, refuse to compromise "Your ideology always a lie "Imperialistic, colonialistic "Bandwagon patriot wake up to this" -Anthrax, "Refuse to be denied" |
From: Matt B. <mbr...@cs...> - 2003-09-30 17:54:12
|
Dave Fancella wrote: > I realize you guys already settled this issue, but I recently saw a > post on slashdot that puts an interesting twist on it. (Ok, I wrote > the post) Just some food for thought... > > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=80370&cid=7091511 Very nice. This comment notes that the GPL defines "work based on the Program" as "any derivative work under copyright law." This is good for our interpretation; it means that it is up to the law and the courts to decide whether a given work is "derivative" and falls under the licensing requirements. This means that the FSF assertion that a pluggable component is a "derivative work" is almost certainly false in some circumstances. |
From: Joshua H. <jo...@re...> - 2003-09-30 19:42:28
|
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 10:53, Matt Brubeck wrote: > Dave Fancella wrote: > > > I realize you guys already settled this issue, but I recently saw a > > post on slashdot that puts an interesting twist on it. (Ok, I wrote > > the post) Just some food for thought... > > > > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=80370&cid=7091511 > > Very nice. This comment notes that the GPL defines "work based on the > Program" as "any derivative work under copyright law." I've come to this conclusion before, but I didn't remember that the GPL spells it out this clearly. Realistically, that's the only definition for "work based on the program" that can hold any water; the GPL cannot put conditions on the use of works that are *not* derivative works, because such works can be made without accepting the license. Commercial software constantly tries to add restrictions beyond what Copyright provides, but I find this dubios: By reading this email message, you agree to give me all your money. Does anyone feel they could be legally compelled to give me money now? Of course not. Then why do software companies get away with: By using this software, you agree to the terms set herein. I don't *need* to agree to anything to use the software, once I have it no law prevents me from using it. I don't need to enter into an agreement for the privilege of using what I have lawfully obtained. Josh |
From: Bill E. <bi...@rf...> - 2003-09-30 20:25:45
|
Matt Brubeck wrote: >Dave Fancella wrote: > > > >>I realize you guys already settled this issue, but I recently saw a >>post on slashdot that puts an interesting twist on it. (Ok, I wrote >>the post) Just some food for thought... >> >>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=80370&cid=7091511 >> >> > >Very nice. This comment notes that the GPL defines "work based on the >Program" as "any derivative work under copyright law." > >This is good for our interpretation; it means that it is up to the law >and the courts to decide whether a given work is "derivative" and falls >under the licensing requirements. This means that the FSF assertion >that a pluggable component is a "derivative work" is almost certainly >false in some circumstances. > > > What???? I think you're reading this very wishfully. Nothing says you can copy a few lines of code - if you copy lines of GPL code, you are working under the GPL. If you wish "total freedom", go find totally free code. GPL carries responsibilities. |
From: Steve H. <S.W...@ec...> - 2003-09-30 20:32:00
|
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:25:05 +0200, Bill Eldridge wrote: > This is good for our interpretation; it means that it is up to the law > and the courts to decide whether a given work is "derivative" and falls > under the licensing requirements. This means that the FSF assertion > that a pluggable component is a "derivative work" is almost certainly > false in some circumstances. IIRC the GPL clearly sais that its only compile time linked objects that come under the GPLs duristriction. As Josh said the GPL doesnt seek to control use, just distribution and derived works. Runtime linking definatly counts as use. - Steve |
From: Bill E. <bi...@rf...> - 2003-09-30 20:55:09
|
Bill Eldridge did not write any of the lines below. I'm very sceptical about the statement attributed to me below as well. Steve Harris wrote: >On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:25:05 +0200, Bill Eldridge wrote: > > >> This is good for our interpretation; it means that it is up to the law >> and the courts to decide whether a given work is "derivative" and falls >> under the licensing requirements. This means that the FSF assertion >> that a pluggable component is a "derivative work" is almost certainly >> false in some circumstances. >> >> > >IIRC the GPL clearly sais that its only compile time linked objects that >come under the GPLs duristriction. > >As Josh said the GPL doesnt seek to control use, just distribution and >derived works. Runtime linking definatly counts as use. > >- Steve > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek >Welcome to geek heaven. >http://thinkgeek.com/sf >_______________________________________________ >Audacity-devel mailing list >Aud...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > > |
From: Steve H. <S.W...@ec...> - 2003-09-30 21:04:18
|
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:54:30 +0200, Bill Eldridge wrote: > Bill Eldridge did not write any of the lines below. > I'm very sceptical about the statement attributed > to me below as well. Appologies. My mail client has decided to start rendering HTML 'email' instead if just discarding it, and its rendering it in a confusing way. For anyone else who cant see the ASCII original, there are two sets of chevrons before the quoted text. - Steve |
From: Matt B. <mbr...@cs...> - 2003-09-30 20:36:44
|
Bill Eldridge wrote: > What???? I think you're reading this very wishfully. > Nothing says you can copy a few lines of code - if > you copy lines of GPL code, you are working under > the GPL. If you wish "total freedom", go find totally > free code. GPL carries responsibilities. Bill, we are not copying anyone else's GPL code. We only want to provide a way for our own GPL software to load non-free plugins that already exist. We believe that, in this specific case, the plugins (which do not include any code from GPL projects) do not need to be released under the GPL in order to be loaded by our software. We believe strongly in free software, which is why we release all of our own source code under the GPL. |
From: Dave F. <dav...@co...> - 2003-10-01 02:45:58
|
On Tuesday 30 September 2003 01:25 pm, Bill Eldridge wrote: > >Very nice. This comment notes that the GPL defines "work based on the > >Program" as "any derivative work under copyright law." > > > >This is good for our interpretation; it means that it is up to the law > >and the courts to decide whether a given work is "derivative" and falls > >under the licensing requirements. This means that the FSF assertion > >that a pluggable component is a "derivative work" is almost certainly > >false in some circumstances. > > What???? I think you're reading this very wishfully. > Nothing says you can copy a few lines of code - if > you copy lines of GPL code, you are working under > the GPL. If you wish "total freedom", go find totally > free code. GPL carries responsibilities. Bill, let me be clear that I'm with you guys on Free Software. I am, in fact, very much in the RMS camp as far as the whole deal goes. Fair Use is what gives me the right to have a small section of a song as my signature, with proper attribution to the artist. If I put the entire lyrics of the song, that would be copyright infringement. (Also, there are limitations depending on whether your purpose is commercial or not, but it's been awhile since I read the copyright statutes) I don't know how this philosophy applies to GPL code, but I would guess (and I'm not a lawyer) that Fair Use would let you copy a few lines of code without having to GPL your entire program. I don't know what the specific limitations here are, either, and I think it takes a judge to determine when you've copied enough stuff for it to be copyright infringement. But no license you receive for copyright works can take away your rights under Fair Use. They can't even do that in those other crazy EULAs. Without an accompanying license agreement, Fair Use are all the rights you have to the work, iirc. But please don't misinterpret me, I'm not saying that I think it's a good idea to find ways to try to copy GPL code. I just looked at the problem that way (the article was about Linksys and GPL violations with the linux kernel) and then reversed it to apply it to proprietary software. It was just a different way of looking at the GPL than I'd seen, and I thought you guys might be interested in beating it around, since GPL issues had recently gone across the list. Maybe this same point of view got beaten to death years ago before I jumped on the Free Software boat. I don't know. I apologize if it came across wrong. I do frequently play the devil's advocate. :) Dave -- "Refuse to be denied, refuse to compromise "Your ideology always a lie "Imperialistic, colonialistic "Bandwagon patriot wake up to this" -Anthrax, "Refuse to be denied" |
From: Bill E. <bi...@rf...> - 2003-09-30 20:28:37
|
Joshua Haberman wrote: >By using this software, you agree to the terms set herein. > >I don't *need* to agree to anything to use the software, once I have it >no law prevents me from using it. I don't need to enter into an >agreement for the privilege of using what I have lawfully obtained. > > By using GPL code, you owe nothing. By modifying GPL code, you owe revisions back to the source. Easy. Ethical. |
From: Joshua H. <jo...@re...> - 2003-09-30 22:53:35
|
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 13:27, Bill Eldridge wrote: > Joshua Haberman wrote: > > >By using this software, you agree to the terms set herein. > > > >I don't *need* to agree to anything to use the software, once I have it > >no law prevents me from using it. I don't need to enter into an > >agreement for the privilege of using what I have lawfully obtained. > > > > > > By using GPL code, you owe nothing. > By modifying GPL code, you owe revisions back to the source. That's not entirely accurate: by *distributing modifications* to GPL code, you owe revisions back to the source. But you've missed my point. I'm complaining about commercial software vendors and their "End-User License Agreements" that they claim you have to accept just to *use* their software. They often contain offensive terms like "you agree not to publish benchmarks of our software," "you agree not to reverse-engineer", etc. The point is, none of these things are forbidden by copyright law. The only thing that imposes these restrictions are an "agreement" that I don't believe it's necessary to enter into. Imagine how easy it would be to avoid lawsuits if you could say "by serving me a subpoena, you agree to drop all charges against me." Declarations of the form "if you do X, you agree to terms Y" are silly unless X is signing a contract. Josh |