DonationCoder.com Software > Circle Dock
Goodbye all, I'm out of here effective immediately
phitsc:
on a GPL-unrelated note: although actually uninvolved, I had quite a bad night, with surreal circle-dockish dreams :o
Tuxman:
Markham: Thanks for clarification. :)
40hz:
without which you are right, GPL software could only be developed and run on GPL operating systems.
-Jibz (August 13, 2010, 08:19 AM)
--- End quote ---
Not really, although doing so would make understanding the legalities a lot easier.
But again, the GPL does not presume to replace existing licenses or other agreements a software author is under. Nor does it argue it has the right to do so. Which is why, mainly to accomodate Windows developers who wanted to release and share their work under GPL, that some of those special conditions (which I'd hestitate to characterize as exceptions) got incorporated into the license.
The whole issue of the programming 'tool chain' and how existing non-GPL developer licenses may impact the GPL has been a very active discussion topic over the years. And there have been some who gave argued that the entire chain needs to be under GPL in order for GPL to work. But saner heads have prevailed, and a compromise has been reached that seems to work quite well for most people.
Or should, unless you're the sort of person that's trying to find yet another loophole to get around it. ;)
Basically, when you GPL your work, only your work is under the license. You're still bound by the terms of any other licenses you are already under for compilers, tools, libraries, dlls, precompiled included binaries, etc. GPL doesn't override any of that. All it covers is your code. It does not force itself on anybody else's code with one big exception: and that's any code that incorporates your code downstream.
And in those cases, the rule is simple and very clear. If you incorporate any code that is licensed under GPL in a downstream project - and if you distribute that project to the general public (whether for free or for a fee) - then you are required to also share your code under the same terms as the GPL code you incorporated into your project.
And while the license itself doesn't split hairs over how much source needs to be incorporated before a GPL violation occurs, the FSF isn't in the litigation business. It has always used reasonable standards and common sense in cases where it does get involved in attempting enforcement actions.
So yes, while 'technically' only one short line of GPL'ed code needs to be present to make a 1 million line program also subject to GPL, you won't ever see FSF taking action on so ridiculous a complaint. Too bad the creators of proprietary licenses don't feel the same way. Companies have pursued smaller competitors and individuals and sought criminal and civil penalties in cases often involving nothing more than single code snippets. One case even argued that the overall structure of a competitor's program amounted to theft of their intellectual property even though not one single line of the actual code was the same!
GPL is not a panacea for all our licensing woes.
But imagine what the IP landscape might be like without something like the GPL around - even if it only served as a reminder that there are alternatives to the legal quagmire we've created for ourselves with software licensing.
40hz:
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.
-Carol Haynes (August 13, 2010, 09:21 AM)
--- End quote ---
GPL does not address programming concepts, or ideas, or intellectual property, or equivalent functionality. It works more like how our copyright laws used to be interpreted and enforced. It protects the actual expression of an idea (i.e. the source code) and not the idea (as in the function of the program) itself. To do otherwise would stifle the incentive for innovation. GPL was created with the specific intent of encouraging the development of derivative works.
Repeat three times: all GPL covers is source code.
If you rewrite something completely from scratch, it's a totally separate thing which you are free too do with as you wish so far as GPL is concerned. And that is true even if it looks and fuctions exactly the same as a GPL product.
Try doing that with proprietary licensed products. Most forbid reverse- engineering, patching for any reason, add-ons, or producing a work that has an equivalent look or functionality.
In short, they claim to own the entire idea along with the product they produced.
FWIW, I predict that if the follow-on CD starts getting even more popular than it already has (and especially if it becomes profitable) it will only be a matter of time before a letter from an attorney arrives informing Team Circle Dock that her client holds a patent for something like an "on-screen control interface incorporating a circular graphical representation of system controls and files" - with a note attached asking if they'd prefer to settle immediately or just go to court?
And that will be if they're lucky. Usully the first time somebody finds out this is about to happen is when their ISP boots them off without warning because they received a DMCA takedown notice and decided to cover their butts and comply without questioning it.
I wish Markham & Co. the best of luck should that happen. :tellme:
mateek:
I think 40hz has spoken clearer than any other contributor on this thread in this latest post...
FWIW, I predict that if the follow-on CD actually does get even more popular (and especially if it becomes profitable) it will only be a matter of time before a letter from an attorney arrives informing Team Circle Dock that her client holds a patent for something like an "on-screen control interface incorporating a circular graphical representation of system controls and files" - ... -40hz (August 13, 2010, 10:44 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm thinking this could only be initiated by Eric Wong with any hope of legal success. I poured over this thread for awhile, but couldn't find the quote where I'm sure I read someone's reassurances that several proprietary dlls in Eric's sourcecode had no restrictions as to redistribution, as opposed to some that do.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version