I don't fully understand the implications of using the GNU General Public License with Microsoft Visual Basic Active-X controls. Could you clarify your intent for me?
Did you intend that if any Visual Basic program that uses the controls is released to others, it must also be released under the GNU General Public License (and include VB source code)?
Or is the intent that only the controls must be distributed with source?
It is my understanding that the controls are dynamically linked during execution, but I have no idea if the use of a control while developing a VB program can be construed as "linking", or if any VB program that uses the controls is considered a "derivative work under copyright law". The lawyers and the courts will eventually decide all of that, but it would help to understand what you (as the current author) and also the original authors intended.
This is only a theoretical question - I have no plans to release anything using the controls, but who knows what the future holds? Most likely I would use the GPL, but others might want to do differently.
Thank you.
Bill Fenlason - billfen_at_hvc_rr_com_
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hello. Others may want to do it differently and wish to incorporate parts of the controls into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different than GPL, so an option is to write to the author to ask for permission.
You may contact the people at gnu.org for more assistance in the clarification of the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2 (GPL) because the lawyers and courts already figured it out. It is the same GPL license that is used in many projects on sourceforge. As you predicted, a product with the GPL license is used with other products with GPL. This license does not include "linking" as you stated in your example because that is another license, the GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2.1 (LGPL).
From my understanding, free in GPL means freedom of use, not price. Safely giveaway or sell products with the controls provided the source code that is related to the controls is available. The combination of visual basic code and the controls is legally speaking a combined work for the portion that is not independent of the controls. The portion of the source code that can run without the controls is safely not part of the GPL, but can get tricky so contact gnu.org for more assistance.
Any midi files or audible music created with visual basic or the controls is safely not considered part of GPL because midi files and audible music are output which are not a derivative of the program.
Hope that helps.
Joseph Balogh
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Since the LGPL was not used, I am assuming that your intent is that any VB program which uses the controls must be released under the GPL (with VB source).
Because many VB programmers are unaware of the ramifications of the GPL, it would not be surprising if shareware (or freeware) authors use your controls without releasing VB source. Have you considered adding an explicit statement regarding this to the control ABOUT boxes? The original Mabry statement seems to imply "use this any way you want".
By the way, I'm familiar with the GPL, and I'm sure that all the lawyers have their opinions about it. But I'm under the impression that the overall legality of the GPL has never been tested in a major court case. Did the FSF sue someone and win? Hope I didn't miss it.
BillFen
ps. Please don't get me wrong - I'm a supporter of free and open software!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, but please contact gnu.org and sourceforge.net for more assistance about the good or valueless impact of a license on the world. Perhaps they also know if a license can be summarized or interpreted in a shorter explicit statement. Most products, like the Mabry statement, minimized confusion by just defering to the GPL with no warranty or support.
As you noticed, no obvious ramifications against shareware and freeware because they are vehicles to help demo/test product viability and are not yet enterprising products for anyone to care about. Lawsuits have been tested against enterprising products but were settled out of court. In any case, old GPL utilities can always remain for developers in-house testing, tools and education.
Joseph
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi Joseph,
I don't fully understand the implications of using the GNU General Public License with Microsoft Visual Basic Active-X controls. Could you clarify your intent for me?
Did you intend that if any Visual Basic program that uses the controls is released to others, it must also be released under the GNU General Public License (and include VB source code)?
Or is the intent that only the controls must be distributed with source?
It is my understanding that the controls are dynamically linked during execution, but I have no idea if the use of a control while developing a VB program can be construed as "linking", or if any VB program that uses the controls is considered a "derivative work under copyright law". The lawyers and the courts will eventually decide all of that, but it would help to understand what you (as the current author) and also the original authors intended.
This is only a theoretical question - I have no plans to release anything using the controls, but who knows what the future holds? Most likely I would use the GPL, but others might want to do differently.
Thank you.
Bill Fenlason - billfen_at_hvc_rr_com_
Hello. Others may want to do it differently and wish to incorporate parts of the controls into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different than GPL, so an option is to write to the author to ask for permission.
You may contact the people at gnu.org for more assistance in the clarification of the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2 (GPL) because the lawyers and courts already figured it out. It is the same GPL license that is used in many projects on sourceforge. As you predicted, a product with the GPL license is used with other products with GPL. This license does not include "linking" as you stated in your example because that is another license, the GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2.1 (LGPL).
From my understanding, free in GPL means freedom of use, not price. Safely giveaway or sell products with the controls provided the source code that is related to the controls is available. The combination of visual basic code and the controls is legally speaking a combined work for the portion that is not independent of the controls. The portion of the source code that can run without the controls is safely not part of the GPL, but can get tricky so contact gnu.org for more assistance.
Any midi files or audible music created with visual basic or the controls is safely not considered part of GPL because midi files and audible music are output which are not a derivative of the program.
Hope that helps.
Joseph Balogh
Joseph, thanks for your explaination.
Since the LGPL was not used, I am assuming that your intent is that any VB program which uses the controls must be released under the GPL (with VB source).
Because many VB programmers are unaware of the ramifications of the GPL, it would not be surprising if shareware (or freeware) authors use your controls without releasing VB source. Have you considered adding an explicit statement regarding this to the control ABOUT boxes? The original Mabry statement seems to imply "use this any way you want".
By the way, I'm familiar with the GPL, and I'm sure that all the lawyers have their opinions about it. But I'm under the impression that the overall legality of the GPL has never been tested in a major court case. Did the FSF sue someone and win? Hope I didn't miss it.
BillFen
ps. Please don't get me wrong - I'm a supporter of free and open software!
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, but please contact gnu.org and sourceforge.net for more assistance about the good or valueless impact of a license on the world. Perhaps they also know if a license can be summarized or interpreted in a shorter explicit statement. Most products, like the Mabry statement, minimized confusion by just defering to the GPL with no warranty or support.
As you noticed, no obvious ramifications against shareware and freeware because they are vehicles to help demo/test product viability and are not yet enterprising products for anyone to care about. Lawsuits have been tested against enterprising products but were settled out of court. In any case, old GPL utilities can always remain for developers in-house testing, tools and education.
Joseph