Open Source Licenses

[reaper]

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.

[quadz]

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.

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

[reaper]

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.

[quadz]

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

[reaper]

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