Re: [Fwd: [Cvsnt] cvs + M$ Integration with VS IDE]

[Pierre Asselin]

> Tony Hoyle <address@hidden> writes:

> The way you previously explained it, he was calling a GPL'ed DLL -
> that's the same (in the eyes of the GPL) as executing a separate
> binary.

If I remember correctly, it *is* the same thing in the FSF's view.
Maybe a court would disagree.  Does run-time linking with a GPL'd
library produce a derived work under copyright law?  If a judge says yes,
the GPL sticks.  If a judge says no, there is a serious loophole in the
GPL.  Until the courts speak, the FSF's intent is that GPL'd dynamic libraries
are infectious;  LGPL'd libraries aren't.

If I also remember correctly, a front-end that talks to a GPL'd server
through some interprocess communication mechanism is *not* affected by
the GPL.  That could be a way out for him.  In fact, he could turn the
tables and isolate the code subject to the Microsoft NDA instead of the
CVS code.  Write a closed back-end for the Microsoft functions, document
the protocol used by the back-end (the protocol is his, not Microsoft's)
and write a GPL application that invokes the back-end as separate process.

Whether this is even possible depends on what the NDA covers.  He would have
to be *very* careful here.  If it were me, I'd rather be sued by the FSF for
copyright infringement than by Microsoft for nondisclosure violation...

Bottom line:  he should isolate the GPL'd code in a separate server and
write a closed-source client.  Until he does that, he can't distribute
his code.

-- 
Pierre Asselin
Westminster, Colorado