DonationCoder.com Software > Circle Dock
Goodbye all, I'm out of here effective immediately
Carol Haynes:
I have been reading this thread with some bemusement (not to say sadness at all the bitterness in evidence).
Total aside:
Is GPL in practice ever enforceable except in the most trivial of examples?
If source code has to be provided then almost by definition it is ultimately impossible to satisfy that criteria in full. The only way it would be possible is the writing of assembly language with no external calls to the operating system.
To comply in a higher level language would require the source code of all the libraries used (including OS calls) and probably the source code of the compiler!
I know I am being pedantic but GPL does sound rather stupid in this regard - especially where external non-GPL code is incorporated.
Jibz:
Is GPL in practice ever enforceable except in the most trivial of examples?
If source code has to be provided then almost by definition it is ultimately impossible to satisfy that criteria in full. The only way it would be possible is the writing of assembly language with no external calls to the operating system.
To comply in a higher level language would require the source code of all the libraries used (including OS calls) and probably the source code of the compiler!-Carol Haynes (August 13, 2010, 07:52 AM)
--- End quote ---
There is an exception for "system libraries" in the GPL:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.-http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
--- End quote ---
without which you are right, GPL software could only be developed and run on GPL operating systems.
Btw, as mentioned in the FAQ entry linked above, the copyright holder can add an exception to allow linking with non-GPL libraries, which amusingly enough provides a truck-sized hole mentioned in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MoneyGuzzlerInc
mouser:
Just wanted to say it's nice to see this thread has taken a turn in the positive direction overnight, let's try to keep it that way :up:
40hz:
Is GPL in practice ever enforceable except in the most trivial of examples?
-Carol Haynes (August 13, 2010, 07:52 AM)
--- End quote ---
Actually it has. The provisions of the GPL have been recognized as both legal and enforceable by courts in the US and in Europe where cases have been filed against infringers.
And the possibility of legal action and adverse publicity has also been very effectively used to convince even some of the 'big players' (e.g. Sun, Linksys) to not try to ignore the provisions of GPL when incorporating covered code in their commercial projects.
Maybe FSF's low key approach is not as effective and dramatic a method of enforcement as having the SPA/BSA and copyright cops show up with a warrant and kick your door down. But it does accomplish its goals.
8)
Carol Haynes:
Consider this situation: 1) X releases V1 of a project under the GPL. 2) Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code based on V1. 3) X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license. Does X need Y's permission?
Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a consequence of basing it on X's version V1. Nothing required Y to agree to any other license for its code. Therefore, X must get Y's permission before releasing that code under another license. (from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Consider)
--- End quote ---
Interesting idea that once a project has been released under GPL even the original author cannot release it as a commercial product after further development whilst one developer in the world objects! Presumably there is nothing to stop Y releasing a commercial version 2 of the software provided the version 1 code remains under GPL?
Having said that according to the rules of the license any derivative of version 1 is legally obliged to be GPL too - so does this apply to the original author? In which case a commercial product is not possible.
From the discussion in the rest of this thread does this not imply that a GPL product that is developed must remain GPL even if the development goes so far as to modify every single one of the original lines of code?
Also are there no intellectual rights on the original concept which would preclude the development away from the original license?
Redeveloping a functionally identical product from scratch of an existing product is surely a violation of the intellectual rights of the original author even if it is under GPL.
How would this work:
A writes a software library (for the sake of argument containing two functions) and releases it under GPL
B rewrites the code for function 1 and releases it as a standalone product with no license restrictions
C rewrites the code for function 2 and combines his work with that of B to produce a new library containing none of the original code of A.
Is the new library forced to be under GPL since none of the original code exists - yet the product is functionally identical to the original GPLed software?
What would constitute modification in this case that would allow the product to be removed from GPL? Can it be trivial (such as adding 'ripoff' to all the variable names) or does it have to be substantial change - in which case how is that quantified?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version