Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2011-10-07, 18:46   #12
Mr. P-1

Jun 2003

49116 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman As I understand the LGPL, you need not make your source available if you release a binary composed in part of LGPL licensed code.. What you must do is give recipients the ability to re-link your code with a modified version of the LGPL licensed code. In effect you must release the object code, or equivalent, of your work and instructions on how a functional binary may be made with your object code and a new version of the remainder. It's the GPL proper which requires that full sources also be made available.
More or less. If you use an LGPLed library as part of an application program, then you must make the source of the library available under the terms of the LGPL, but you are not obliged to provided source to the application program. It is sufficient to enable linking of the application with a possibly modified and recompiled version of the library.

The above is permissible only if the application interacts with the library only through the latter's API. Alternatively, the entire work may be distributed under the terms of the full GPL.

2011-10-07, 18:52   #13
Mr. P-1

Jun 2003

7·167 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Prime95 The question is by agreeing to let someone post an executable built with GWNUM in a GPL program, have I implicitly agreed that GWNUM is subject to the GPL license?
I'm still not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if someone were to take a program which incorporates GWNUM, and distribute it under the GPL, and you agreed to this, then yes, you would be implicitly placing GWNUM under the GPL licence.

On the other hand, there is nothing stopping the copyright holders in a work from distributing the work under terms of their choice. The fact that a work has been previously distributed under the GPL does not mean that this distribution has to be.

2011-10-07, 19:11   #14
xilman
Bamboozled!

May 2003
Down not across

276016 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mr. P-1 IANAL, but this doesn't sound right to me. ... You can distribute binaries, but if you do, then you must also provide access to the corresponding source in one of the ways specified in the GPL, and also comply with the other conditions of the GPL.
It's the "other conditions" which are the sticking point.

Paul

2011-10-07, 21:04   #15
Mr. P-1

Jun 2003

7×167 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman It's the "other conditions" which are the sticking point.
The sticking point, as far as GWNUM is concerned is the provision in GPLv2 which says "The act of running the Program is not restricted" and in GPLv3 which says "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program". None of the other conditions of GPL appear to be particularly odious:

 2011-10-08, 02:19 #16 Christenson     Dec 2010 Monticello 5·359 Posts Guys: We are going to have the same issue eventually with mfaktc. Mfaktc, proper, is offered under the GPL. To make it communicate with Primenet, I want to take the source of P95, do some fancy footwork with makefiles, and link it as a library to mfaktc. We will then want to distribute the result as both source and binary forms.
2011-10-08, 08:41   #17
xilman
Bamboozled!

May 2003
Down not across

100111011000002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mr. P-1 The sticking point, as far as GWNUM is concerned is the provision in GPLv2 which says "The act of running the Program is not restricted" and in GPLv3 which says "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program". None of the other conditions of GPL appear to be particularly odious:
No, the sticking points are section 5 and 6 of the GPLv3.

George refuses to release his part of the code under the GPL, as is required by section 5 for a work which contains a portion which itself is licensed under the GPL. That is George's prerogative. (Incidentally, this is the restriction I fell foul of when trying to release something for which the entire source was freely available.)

George refuses to provide source for part of his code, as is his right. Section 6 requires that source be made available if the software is distributed in object form.

Paul

Last fiddled with by xilman on 2011-10-08 at 08:44

2011-10-08, 12:02   #18
jasonp
Tribal Bullet

Oct 2004

22×881 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mr. P-1 AIUI, the BSD licence is completely compatible with the GPL. You can distribute binaries, but if you do, then you must also provide access to the corresponding source in one of the ways specified in the GPL, and also comply with the other conditions of the GPL. This applies whether or not the program contains code licensed under BSD or any other GPL-compatible licence.
Right, but 'compatible with' depends on what you want. I treat BSD-licensed code as truly free, as in beer: modify it or not, distribute it or not, but if you distribute it then keep the BSD license. This is much less restrictive than GPL code, because it doesn't try to override the licensing of everything else in your product.

By default I want to distribute my code as public domain, i.e. with no restrictions at all. The goal for me is to use it for big factorizations, as often as possible, and not to protect my intellectual property. I can do that if my code incorporates BSD-licensed components, as long as I preserve the BSD license on them. I cannot do that with GPL stuff. So to me the fact that BSD 'is compatible with' GPL really means 'BSD doesn't get in the way of GPL usurping control of my own work'.

Last fiddled with by jasonp on 2011-10-08 at 12:04

 2011-10-09, 03:24 #19 CRGreathouse     Aug 2006 2·3·977 Posts My feelings mirror jasonp's almost precisely.
2011-10-09, 06:46   #20
Random Poster

Dec 2008

17910 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jasonp I treat BSD-licensed code as truly free, as in beer: modify it or not, distribute it or not, but if you distribute it then keep the BSD license.
That is false. The BSD licenses (there are several) do not require that derivative code must keep the license; in other words, the BSD licenses aren't share-alike licenses. BSD-licensed code can be (and has been) included in proprietary software.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jasonp By default I want to distribute my code as public domain, i.e. with no restrictions at all. The goal for me is to use it for big factorizations, as often as possible, and not to protect my intellectual property. I can do that if my code incorporates BSD-licensed components, as long as I preserve the BSD license on them. I cannot do that with GPL stuff. So to me the fact that BSD 'is compatible with' GPL really means 'BSD doesn't get in the way of GPL usurping control of my own work'.
What about other free licenses? It's not like BSD and GPL are the only choices.

 2011-10-09, 15:21 #21 jasonp Tribal Bullet     Oct 2004 22·881 Posts I should have been more clear that 'distribute' in my previous post meant distribution of BSD-licensed code in source form. If I'm going to release source anyway, there's no reason to change the license on third party stuff that is already permissively licensed. What matters to me is the implications for my stuff. Though I'd care a lot more if my hobby code was more 'mainstream', i.e. if I was toying around with video codecs or something. Has anyone been tempted to insist on outlandish license terms? 'Reproduction in source or binary form is provided without restriction, provided you send me a picture of you standing on your head that I post on my web page. A large payment via Paypal may be provided in lieu of sending me a picture'. I know there are other open source licenses that are available, but most are incompatible with 'use my work however you want'. The closest I know of is the OpenSSL license: 'do whatever, just give us credit; and don't relicense as GPL'.
2011-10-09, 17:17   #22
Mr. P-1

Jun 2003

7×167 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Random Poster That is false. The BSD licenses (there are several) do not require that derivative code must keep the license;
You are in error. The BSD licenses explicitly require that derivative code keep the licence:

Code:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution...
"The above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer" are the entirety of the BSD licence.

Quote:
 in other words, the BSD licenses aren't share-alike licenses. BSD-licensed code can be (and has been) included in proprietary software.
Correct. But this is not because derivative works are not required to keep the license, but because the creators of derivative works are not required to make the source available or to extend the BSD license to the modifications they make. The retain the copyright in the modifications and are free to license them more restrictively (or not at all, if they wish).

Quote:
 What about other free licenses? It's not like BSD and GPL are the only choices.
GPL and BSD are the best known copyleft and non-copyleft free software licences. There is indeed a plethora of other free and to-various-degrees non-free software licences, but their very diversity makes it difficult to make any generally-applicable remarks about them.

Last fiddled with by Mr. P-1 on 2011-10-09 at 17:18

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 225 2020-07-07 22:17 gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 48 2009-07-31 01:44 Unregistered Homework Help 0 2008-10-07 01:00 TTn PSearch 0 2004-05-04 13:16 Xyzzy Lounge 112 2003-10-16 13:23

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:53.

Wed Jul 8 00:53:02 UTC 2020 up 104 days, 22:26, 0 users, load averages: 1.25, 1.35, 1.30