Cool VL Viewer forum

View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 2017-12-18 08:50:14



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Licencing 
Author Message

Joined: 2009-03-18 09:41:54
Posts: 23
GPL is very clear about what I say too.
Reminder: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html, please read section 3, about the conditions of redsitribution.
Quote:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

where in the "following", be it in a. or b. (c. does not apply here), it is stated that the source code has to be distributed "under the terms of section 1 and 2" (themselves stating that you allow third parties to use, modify, compile and redistribute your patch... which makes it "GPL compatible", if not GPL).


2009-03-26 08:49:55
Profile

Joined: 2009-03-25 20:55:42
Posts: 4
Satomi - the GPL does not cause any code used with GPL code to become GPL itself just because it is included with it. If that was the case, companies such as Tivo, Linksys, and others would not be able to release their devices that contain GPL code without also releasing all the other proprietary code included on those systems. Marine is free to license her code any way she sees fit (it's her code.) The GPL does require that sources for the GPL code be available, and they are - directly from LL, since Marine uses such code as is.

This issue has been hashed and re-hashed over and over in other forums where similar situations have arisen - it's a common misunderstanding that lawyers for the Free Software Foundation have attempted to clarify in the past. It is a complicated legal issue and therefor understandable for these misconceptions to arise. The bottom line though, is that Marine does NOT have to license her code as GPL.


2009-03-26 11:17:05
Profile

Joined: 2009-03-18 09:41:54
Posts: 23
Well, mentionning TiVo in a GPL discussion is kinda a flamebait^^.
As for Cisco (LinkSys), they are currently being sued by the FSF: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/bl ... opensource (for not providing the sources at all... which is not the issue that preoccupies us, but still shows how lax Cisco is about GPL compliance!)
Even so, they do release some code: http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellit ... torWrapper
And guess what the license is?... GPL, of course!

And well, you don't have to make everything GPL compatible, only the sources that are required to build a GPL binary (actually everything that links statically or dynamically to GPL code).
This excludes all the independant pieces of software TiVo or LinkSys might have included.

Quote:
The GPL does require that sources for the GPL code be available, and they are - directly from LL, since Marine uses such code as is.

The sections 3 says more than that: the code has to be released under the terms of section 1 and 2.

Anyway, I know this is a common issue, and I don't remember the bottomline being what you say (or have you any link for supporting this?).


2009-03-26 13:33:10
Profile

Joined: 2009-03-25 19:01:17
Posts: 6
Maybe I'm thick or I didn't understand their license well, but LL does not state that the executable produced by their source code (which is only borderline GPL) and another code which is proprietary, must be GPL. In other words, RestrainedLife.exe is NOT GPL and does NOT have to be. The part of the source that is GPL has to stay that way and as such, forces me to publish the whole source code, but not as one GPL package. I am bound to give you the ability to build your own viewer with the source I use to produce the executable you downloaded, that's all. That does not give you the right to do what you want with every part of said source without taking individual licenses into account.

At the very least, I could publish only my patch and the concern would be moot.

Marine

PS : I may sound a bit cold, it is not because I am upset or anything, but because of the time it takes to write on this forum with my iPhone and the lack of visibility of the text window. I must get right to the point. Sorry about that.


2009-03-26 13:49:21
Profile

Joined: 2009-03-18 09:41:54
Posts: 23
Well, RestrainedLife.exe is not stricto sensu GPL... but it is derivated work from some source code, so copyright rules apply.
Copyright states that either you can't distribute any derivated work, or you abide by the license of the original work (here the source code), if it is licensed.
Here the license of LL source code is GPL. First sentence of section 3 of this license says that distributing binaries compiled from this source code is possible only if you provide all the source code that is necessary for building the binary under the terms of section 1 and 2.

Your license (which forbids distributing derivated works) does not comply to sections 1 and 2, hence it is not enough to meet the requirements of section 3 for the original code from LL.


2009-03-26 14:21:36
Profile

Joined: 2009-03-25 19:01:17
Posts: 6
No, RestrainedLife.exe is not derivative work. It is the result of the compilation of two separate source codes with different licenses. Derivative work applies to source code, not to executables.

I have read these sections carefully btw, they don't say my work must be GPL. In fact, please read the part beginning with "Thus, it is not the intent...".


2009-03-26 14:32:54
Profile

Joined: 2009-03-26 14:28:01
Posts: 4
I typed up a whole bunch, but then decided I really don't want to get drawn into a GPL debate so I'd just offer the following advice:
1) post a message to SLdev and ask for feedback there (informal)
2) email licensing@gnu.org and ask if your stipulation/license is compatible with the GPL (probably official)
3) fire off an email to licensing@lindenlab.com (official)

I've emailed gnu.org before with a question about the GPL and they were rather prompt in replying to it so that could be a good way to go; licensing@lindenlab.com likely is a black hole and probably takes forever (if ever) to get a response since they might need to run it by the lawyers.

Emailing SLdev won't get you an official response, but there have been GPL discussions there before and answers there would likely be more authorative than here.

(That last bit isn't meant to disparage anyone here; my own view is close to Satomi's so it's hard not to comment, but it just doesn't seem like anyone would change anyone's mind here :))


2009-03-26 15:17:25
Profile

Joined: 2009-03-25 19:01:17
Posts: 6
"view" ? My licensing is not subject to points of view, sorry. And I don't need to ask for any official explanation which, I'm sure, would likely be interpretable by some people anyway. In a nutshell, I don't think I gave any hint that I was arguing, I have just been stating the same fact over and over again : my patch, which is a separate work from the SL source code, is not GPL. This is not negotiable, I'm afraid. Merging it with GPL code does not make it GPL, and publishing the whole patched source code is not permitted, nor is publishing a not-trivially modified version of my code.


2009-03-26 16:00:36
Profile

Joined: 2009-03-18 09:41:54
Posts: 23
Of course the binary is a derivative work, as it is something you obtain by transformation of the source (even worse, making a binary from a source is not considered as a creative work, so 100% of its copyright belongs to the copyright holders of the source).
Anyway, there would be no point to copyleft at all, if anyone could just make its own modified proprietary program and distribute it only in binary form.

Now, I believe I stated all my arguments... If you still disagree, well, I'll have to live with this.
Just don't be surprised if you receive more and more complaints about GPL violation!

Quote:
I have just been stating the same fact over and over again : my patch, which is a separate work from the SL source code, is not GPL. This is not negotiable, I'm afraid.

Stating again and again the same false reasoning. GPL isn't negociable either.

Edit: GPL isn't negociable, but maybe you can negociate with LL the authorization to do what you are doing?


2009-03-26 17:05:35
Profile

Joined: 2009-03-25 19:01:17
Posts: 6
Ok, for the last time I am NOT violating the GPL, and many people here agree with me. An executable is not a piece of work, it is a product. Not derivated, but built. It is not a transformation of a source, or it would be a source itself. It is built from several source codes that are not all GPL. Integrating copyrighted source into GPL source code does not void the copyright, but does make the whole package GPL. This is why I do not allow people to redistribute patched RLV source code.

I really don't see what is so hard to understand. I have read the GPL ten times already and still didn't find anything that invaiidates my point. Besides, one does not even need to read the GPL at all, because it is written by competent people, who know what they are talking about. In other words, it just makes sense as it is.


2009-03-26 17:54:55
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.