help-gsl
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-gsl] Licensing


From: Luke
Subject: Re: [Help-gsl] Licensing
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:41:18 -0700

Interesting.  Thanks for that link.

What about using GPL code alongside code that isn't proprietary, but
isn't GPL.  Say BSD for example?

Also, in the context of numerical mathematics, it seems (to me at
least) that any code you write that depends upon the functionality of
GSL would basically be nonfunctional if GSL functionality wasn't
"incorporated" into your code.  For example, if I write some code that
builds a matrix, and then use the GSL to find the eigenvalues, and
then do all sorts of things based upon what the particular values of
the eigenvalues are, it seems to me that this program wouldn't work
unless it had the functionality provided by GSL.  So does this then
imply that my code would need to be GPL licensed?  And does the issue
of static or dynamic linking even matter here, as is argued by various
people?

Thoughts?

~Luke

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:27 PM, John Pye <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The intent of the GPL with regard to its use in proprietary code is
> pretty clear, I think:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
>
> It says
>
>> You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system.
>
> then it says
>
>> The difference between this and “incorporating” the GPL-covered
>> software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The
>> substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that
>> they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat
>> them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
>
> I think that acid test is this: does you program function in some useful
> way in the absence of GSL? OR is GSL essential for its correct operation?
>
> I think that many of the authors of GSL have been contributing to it
> because they like the 'viral' idea of GPL: by contributing a good piece
> of FOSS to GSL, they make it incrementally more likely that other people
> will build on it and create more FOSS code that they, in turn, will
> release. So GSL has come in to being, to large extent, *because* of this
> particular restriction.
>
> Cheers
> JP
>
> Luke wrote:
>> Jonny,
>> I found this Wikipedia article interesting and relevant:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works
>>
>> So it seems that it isn't quite clear cut that you *have* to release
>> item #1 under the GPLv3, although doing so would certainly eliminate
>> any debate.  But it seems for sure that item #5 must be GPL v3, since
>> it is clearly a 'derivative work' since you have hacked much of it
>> together from the GSL sources themselves.  My interpretation of item
>> #6 is the same as that of item #1.
>>
>> Other thoughts?
>>
>> ~Luke
>>
>
> --
> Dr John Pye
> Dept of Engineering
> Australian National University
>
>
>



-- 
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]