Author Topic: Open Source Licenses  (Read 13695 times)

Offline reaper

  • Opulent Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2872
  • Nice night for a walk, eh? - Nice night for a walk
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Open Source Licenses
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2008, 01:32:47 PM »
Quote from: quadz
Again, I think we need to be more precise.  After all, the GPL contains many paragraphs devoted to illustrating just how, when you GPL your code, you are affecting the relationship between your code and other code.

So it all depends on how other software will be interacting with your GPL code.

If your program is like ssh, meant to be used by completely separate programs (like rsync, etc.), then I agree that ssh and rsync can have different, incompatible licenses.

But if your program is like libssl, meant to be linked with someone else's code and become part of a larger program, then choosing the GPL for your library defintely affects other software that would like to "interact" with your library.


I create the software, so I can define what is seperate, so it's a matter of semantics.  how do I go about making things work together, so I can still be GPL compliant.

what about virtualization software that is GPL'd, it runs propriatary code, same with the NDIS wrapper.  These things need and can be packaged with drivers, and operating systems, the same goes for other software, where software interfacts.  You can't define all software as one.  So if I make some code, which was based on GPL, I can have it interoperate with propriatery code.  I just have to involve the proprietary code, as a possible separate entitity.  as long as I can identify my program in portions (this is the portion that has to be GPL compliant) then you are ok.  at least that's how I think the law should view the license.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2008, 01:34:35 PM by reaper »
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus
VaeVictus "reaper is a lying sack of shit and ragequit then had, probably slugs, come alias and beat me, wasnt even the same person playing OBVIOUSLY, accuracies basicly doubled, and strategy

Offline quadz

  • Loquaciously Multiloquent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5352
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Open Source Licenses
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2008, 02:54:04 PM »
So if I make some code, which was based on GPL, I can have it interoperate with propriatery code.  I just have to involve the proprietary code, as a possible separate entitity.  as long as I can identify my program in portions (this is the portion that has to be GPL compliant) then you are ok.  at least that's how I think the law should view the license.

I can't tell from your stream-of-consciousness writing style whether you have a basic grasp of how the GPL works or not. :nana:

What do you mean by "involve the proprietary code as a possible separate entity"?

  1. How will you be distributing the proprietary code?  How will you be distributing the GPL'd code?

  2. Will your software combine both the GPL code and the proprietary code into what could functionally be considered a larger program?


Regards,

quadz

  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus
"He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

Offline reaper

  • Opulent Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2872
  • Nice night for a walk, eh? - Nice night for a walk
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Open Source Licenses
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2008, 07:52:11 PM »
this is how I see the GPL:
you make some code, you licsense it, and then if someone wants to use it, they need to distribute the source code to their work which was based of your  code.

things are intergrated, web browsers, operating systems, any application.  applications are complex, just because it is running on the same machine (distributed however)  all parts are not indiviual.  so if I release software, based on GPL'd code, I have to distribute the source.  but in my opinion the definition of an application can be very broad, and I can have portions of the applications not defnied by the GPL code.

and if it is a hazy decision, then you don't side with the GPL.  if you're releasing modifications to code based of the GPL that's ok, but not everything that operates together, is part of that.  distributing things bundled is just the best means, it doesn't mean all software components (even though working together) are the same.
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus
VaeVictus "reaper is a lying sack of shit and ragequit then had, probably slugs, come alias and beat me, wasnt even the same person playing OBVIOUSLY, accuracies basicly doubled, and strategy

Offline quadz

  • Loquaciously Multiloquent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5352
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Open Source Licenses
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2008, 10:25:28 PM »
in my opinion the definition of an application can be very broad, and I can have portions of the applications not defnied by the GPL code.

and if it is a hazy decision, then you don't side with the GPL.  if you're releasing modifications to code based of the GPL that's ok, but not everything that operates together, is part of that.  distributing things bundled is just the best means, it doesn't mean all software components (even though working together) are the same.

I guess I don't understand your point.  The GPL already distinguishes between separate programs that are bundled together ("mere aggregation"), versus a "whole work" which may be in part based on a GPL program.

The GPL is very clear about its intent: "the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."  (emphasis mine)

Further:

  These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
  identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
  and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
  themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
  sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
  distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
  on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
  this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
  entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

That's just how the GPL works.  If it doesn't match your needs, the simple solution would be to not use GPL code anywhere in your project.

If you think you can have portions of your application covered by the GPL and portions of it not covered, I'd be interested to know more about how you plan to accomplish that?

(And, note, I'm not speaking as a GPL fanatic... I almost always release code under LGPL or BSD or Ruby licenses, rather than GPL, myself.)

Regards,

quadz
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus
"He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

Offline reaper

  • Opulent Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2872
  • Nice night for a walk, eh? - Nice night for a walk
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Open Source Licenses
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2008, 11:03:27 PM »
it's probably hard to define "dependent" in all situations.

i don't like the GPL, release it all, or keep it to yourself. that's what i like
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus
VaeVictus "reaper is a lying sack of shit and ragequit then had, probably slugs, come alias and beat me, wasnt even the same person playing OBVIOUSLY, accuracies basicly doubled, and strategy

 

El Box de Shoutamente

Last 10 Shouts:

 

Costigan_Q2

November 11, 2024, 06:41:06 AM
"Stay cozy folks.

Everything is gonna be fine."

There'll be no excuses for having TDS after January 20th, there'll be no excuses AT ALL!!!
 

|iR|Focalor

November 06, 2024, 03:28:50 AM
 

RailWolf

November 05, 2024, 03:13:44 PM
Nice :)

Tom Servo

November 04, 2024, 05:05:24 PM
The Joe Rogan Experience episode 223 that dropped a couple hours ago with Musk, they're talking about Quake lol.
 

Costigan_Q2

November 04, 2024, 03:37:55 PM
Stay cozy folks.

Everything is gonna be fine.
 

|iR|Focalor

October 31, 2024, 08:56:37 PM
 

Costigan_Q2

October 17, 2024, 06:31:53 PM
Not activated your account yet?

Activate it now! join in the fun!

Tom Servo

October 11, 2024, 03:35:36 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA
 

|iR|Focalor

October 10, 2024, 12:19:41 PM
I don't worship the devil. Jesus is Lord, friend. He died for your sins. He will forgive you if you just ask.
 

rikwad

October 09, 2024, 07:57:21 PM
Sorry, I couldn't resist my inner asshole.

Show 50 latest
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 13, 2024, 10:31:25 PM

Login with username, password and session length