[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs
From: |
Haakon Riiser |
Subject: |
Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs |
Date: |
5 Jul 2004 22:50:27 +0200 |
User-agent: |
slrn/0.9.8.0 (Linux) |
[Alexander Terekhov]
>> I haven't personally read it yet, but I'll do so ASAP. If this
>> is the case for our license, we have to consider if it's even
>> worth bothering with WMV9. :-( I can't even believe why they
>> would do such a thing -- are they afraid of getting infected by
>> the GPL license in some way? Do they mention the GPL
>> specifically?
>
> Potentially viral software. That's all history. MS went CPL (for
> at least two projects) recently.
Just to be sure: s/CPL/GPL/, right? :-)
> And the GPL isn't viral. Your lawyer is correct (but he should
> have mentioned that the scope of the "derivative work" (after
> modifications/transformations) doesn't encompass independent
> works/sections (the GPL just can't cross API/module boundaries)
> even if they are "combined" with the derivative stuff.
OK, thanks. I will wait a few days to see if more points come up,
and if not, I'll notify the authors of the GPL'd libraries we'd
like to use, and get their opinions as well. I know that many
(perhaps most?) people use the GPL without understanding exactly
what it means. Personally, I wouldn't want to restricting linking,
but I /would/ want to prevent companies from making improvements to
the program without giving it back to the community. Strange that
there's no well-known license for this purpose.
The BSD-style license is a bit /too/ permissive for my taste.
If one builds upon the work of the free software community, I
think it's only fair that those modifications must be released
under a license that is at least as permissive as the original
work, so that the entire community may benefit from it.
GPL has this, but I don't like its intentions to restrict linking,
shared memory, and so on. LGPL is better, but it's not intended
to support static linking, and it's a bit too verbose.
Perhaps I should write such as license for myself, since no-one
else has. Problem is, licenses are for lawyers, and I don't feel
comfortable pretending I am one. :-)
Anyway, many thanks to everyone who has helped so far!
--
Haakon
- Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Haakon Riiser, 2004/07/05
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Per Abrahamsen, 2004/07/05
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Arnoud Engelfriet, 2004/07/05
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Arnoud Engelfriet, 2004/07/06
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Arnoud Engelfriet, 2004/07/06
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, David Kastrup, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, David Kastrup, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, David Kastrup, 2004/07/06