Is it possible to write GPL-Modules for closed-source Software?
Stephan Kuhagen
Subject says it all... I'm working for an Institute/Company which does
scientific and medical imaging software. We have some OpenSource-Addicts in
the house (with me as the most addicted...) and try to bring at least some
of our software to the OpenSource-World. Now there is our
"Premium"-Software, that will stay closed source for long time (although we
try our best to convince the others...). If we can not release the software
under the GPL, we like to release at least some of it's modules under the
GPL.
The software does not really need those modules, so it is not dependend on
them. The modules (there are hundreds of them) are loaded at runtime, not
statically linked.
Can I write a module, using the proprietary API of the software and release
it under the GPL? The GPL-modules would be available as precompiled module
for Windows/Linux/MacOSX and as source. I like to pack them into the
commercial installer (including the source of the module, of course) also,
but this is not required.
Is this possible without violating GPL, or is there no way to "undermine"
the closed-source-philosophy step-by-step...?
Regards
Stephan
Alexander Terekhov
stick to something non-idiotic like the CPL or (its derivative with
minor modification regarding patent retaliation) EPL.
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php
----
21. If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the EPL
and distribute the object code of the module along with the rest
of the Program, must I make the source code to my module
available in accordance with the terms of the EPL?
No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the
Program.
[...]
26. Some free software communities say that linking to their code
automatically means that your program is a derivative work. Is
this the position of the Eclipse Foundation?
No, the Eclipse Foundation interprets the term "derivative work"
in a way that is consistent with the definition in the U.S.
Copyright Act, as applicable to computer software. Therefore,
linking to Eclipse code might or might not create a derivative
work, depending on all of the other facts and circumstances.
27. I"m a programmer not a lawyer, can you give me a clear cut
example of when something is or is not a derivative work?
If you have made a copy of existing Eclipse code and made a few
minor revisions to it, that is a derivative work. If you"ve
written your own Eclipse plug-in with 100% your own code to
implement functionality not currently in Eclipse, then it is not
a derivative work. Scenarios between those two extremes will
require you to seek the advice of your own legal counsel in
deciding whether your program constitutes a derivative work.
----
#27's "scenarios between those two extremes" is about the AFC test.
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html
Then go here:
http://www.innovationlaw.org/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/1/Heer_nonliteral_728806.pdf
Hth.
regards,
alexander.
Stephan Kuhagen
> Stay away from the [L]GPL (aka All Your Base Are Belong To GNU) and
> stick to something non-idiotic like the CPL or (its derivative with
> minor modification regarding patent retaliation) EPL.
Thanks for your fast reply.
But your suggestion is not a good option for me. First I really like the
idea of the GPL and have no problems with its restrictions.
More important than that is, that at least some of my modules will use other
GPLed Libraries and Programs, so those modules have to be GPL anyway.
Regards
Stephan
Alexander Terekhov
Stephan Kuhagen wrote:
[...]
> More important than that is, that at least some of my modules will
> use other GPLed Libraries and Programs, so those modules have to be
> GPL anyway.
Linking is irrelevant. If your modules are not derivative works of
"GPLed Libraries and Programs" (seek the advice of your own legal
counsel re AFC test), then I suggest that you simply go ahead with
the CPL or EPL; if somebody dares to come after you claiming GPL
violation (in court of law, not those empty threats and "opinions"
the FSF is so fond of), you'll have a good chance to put the entire
GPL code base into quasi public domain. Google "Open Source
Licensing: Virus or Virtue?" and "GPL + "copyright misuse"". Show
the hits to your own legal counsel.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> Stephan Kuhagen wrote:
> [...]
>> More important than that is, that at least some of my modules will
>> use other GPLed Libraries and Programs, so those modules have to be
>> GPL anyway.
>
> Linking is irrelevant. If your modules are not derivative works of
> "GPLed Libraries and Programs" (seek the advice of your own legal
> counsel re AFC test), then I suggest that you simply go ahead with
> the CPL or EPL;
Uh, you forgot that he liked the GPL and its provisions.
> if somebody dares to come after you claiming GPL violation (in court
> of law, not those empty threats and "opinions" the FSF is so fond
> of), you'll have a good chance to put the entire GPL code base into
> quasi public domain.
A chance that the legal departments of Microsoft, IBM and a few other
large players with deep pockets have happily passed on, and a
three-digit number of parties addressed by the GPL-violations project
alone did, too.
As usual, Alexander's advice is fit for lunatics.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Uh, you forgot that he liked the GPL and its provisions.
Then he should GPL his sister and mom. And then http://www.fsf.org/donate.
[...]
> A chance that the legal departments of Microsoft, IBM and a few other
> large players with deep pockets have happily passed on, and a
> three-digit number of parties addressed by the GPL-violations project
> alone did, too.
Oh dear. Copyright misuse is a defense. When was the last time the FSF
was in court of law and the court granted a favorable judgment regarding
any of RMS+Moglen's numerous moronic fantasies (not a contract, linking
is relevant, and whatnot)?
As for GPL-violations project...
The GPL-defender Welte was (finally) laughed out of court?
The regular one (Hauptverfahren), not his usual idiotic ex parte
(Einstweilige Verfuegung) actions (and "appeals" thereof) he is so fond
of ("suing" wrong defendants and obtaining pointless preliminary
"injunctions" against entities not involving in any distribution at all).
Inquiring Minds Want to Know.
http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/
----
Tue, 25 Jul 2006
Travelling to a gpl-violations.org related court hearing tomorrow
Tomorrow morning I'll have the pleasure of travelling to Frankfurt,
where the first court hearing in a particular gpl-violations.org case
will happen.
Those of you who follow my actions closely (closer than the practically
non-existing PR work of gpl-violations.org allows) will notice that this
is actually the first 'regular court case'. So far we settled everything
either out-of-court, or sooner or later after a preliminary injunction,
or an appeals case thereof.
In this particular case the defendant claims that the GPL is not
applicable to them for a number of reasons, but at the same time argues
that he still has the right to use the software, despite not having
obtained any kind of license.
I don't yet wan to disclose the identity of the defendant yet, but I'll
certainly post some more information on this pretty soon. You will all
know the company, though. A very popular vendor of embedded networking
gear.
-----
No follow-up yet. So stay tuned.
regards,
alexander.
Stephan Kuhagen
> Linking is irrelevant.
But my sympathy for the GPL is relevant. Also relevant is that I'm going to
use GPL-code from other people in my modules.
I understand, that you do not like the GPL and I have no problem with that.
But your postings are not helpful and are not answers to my questions. So I
suggest, that you stop wasting your time with trying to convince me to
avoid the GPL, which I'm definitely won't do.
But do not misunderstand me, I would appreciate your advice, if you can give
useful answers to my questions.
Thanks
Stephan
Alexander Terekhov
Stephan Kuhagen wrote:
[...]
> But do not misunderstand me, I would appreciate your advice, if you can give
> useful answers to my questions.
GPL your wife and kinds as well. Then invite RMS to deliver a speech
to your Institute/Company' BETRIEBSHAUPTVERSAMMLUNG or some such. Book
a Hilton (or some such) for him -- he likes good food.
regards,
alexander.
Alfred M. Szmidt
Then he should GPL his sister and mom. And then
http://www.fsf.org/donate.
If his mother was GPLed, then he and his sister are also GPLed.
Alfred M. Szmidt
Alexander Terekhov
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> If his mother was GPLed, then he and his sister are also GPLed.
I gather that your dad GPL'd your mom. Hey ams, do you have a sister? :-)
regards,
alexander.
Alfred M. Szmidt
in my modules.
The following will be relevant to you:
| 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
| portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and
| copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms
| of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these
| conditions:
|
| [...]
|
| b. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
| that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
| Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at
| no charge to all third parties under the terms of this
| License.
How the copyright holder licenses his work work is up to him, he could
distribute GPL + non-free bits. The problem is that third parties
(i.e. anyone but the copyright holder) could be sued by the copyright
holder for copyright infrigment if they distribute modified versions
of the work that include the non-free bits; the copyright holder won't
be silly enough to sue himself.
Since you intended to include GPL licensed code from others, you must
obey the license for those works, which means that you cannot use or
link non-free licensed code into your program, as per section 2(b) of
the GNU GPL version 2.
But do not misunderstand me, I would appreciate your advice, if you
can give useful answers to my questions.
He can't. Sadly.
Cheers!
Stephan Kuhagen
> GPL your wife and kinds as well. Then invite RMS to deliver a speech
> to your Institute/Company' BETRIEBSHAUPTVERSAMMLUNG or some such. Book
> a Hilton (or some such) for him -- he likes good food.
Since you continue to give unuseful comments and start getting personal, I
will try to make it easier for you, to spend your time with more productive
things. You have now your own filter-rule in my newsreader, so there is no
use posting any further comments to me. Thank you for your efforts.
Regards
Stephan
Alfred M. Szmidt
> you can give useful answers to my questions.
GPL your wife and kinds as well.
I suspect that the OP doesn't hold the copyright on his wife. But if
the OP is indeed the GPL, the OP cannot copulate with his wife unless
she is licensed under terms that are compatible with the GNU GPL.
Seriously, go get a freaking life Alexander...
David Kastrup
> > But do not misunderstand me, I would appreciate your advice, if
> > you can give useful answers to my questions.
>
> GPL your wife and kinds as well.
>
> I suspect that the OP doesn't hold the copyright on his wife. But
> if the OP is indeed the GPL, the OP cannot copulate with his wife
> unless she is licensed under terms that are compatible with the GNU
> GPL.
The output from a GPLed program or device is not per se GPLed: only if
his genes were under the GPL, would the results be affected, and only
in the copyrightable portions of it (of which is it is unlikely there
are any), not the physical manifestation.
> Seriously, go get a freaking life Alexander...
For one thing, he perfectly well has the life of a freak, and for
another, look at what you wrote above.
Stephan Kuhagen
> If his mother was GPLed, then he and his sister are also GPLed.
Hm. I really like that idea. My genetic code would be a good starting point
for other programmers to learn how to avoid some common mistakes. Sadly I
can't ask my mother for the copyright, since her process terminated early.
So I suggest we stop getting personal here and someone either starts to give
useful comments to my question or please ignore this thread and do
something usefull.
Regards
Stephan
Keith Thompson
> Hello Alexander
>> Linking is irrelevant.
>
> But my sympathy for the GPL is relevant. Also relevant is that I'm going to
> use GPL-code from other people in my modules.
>
> I understand, that you do not like the GPL and I have no problem with that.
> But your postings are not helpful and are not answers to my questions. So I
> suggest, that you stop wasting your time with trying to convince me to
> avoid the GPL, which I'm definitely won't do.
Alexander isn't going to stop wasting his time; asking him to do so is
a waste of your time. It's easier just to ignore him.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Michael Bubb
are intersting to me. And because I end up using a fair amount of fsf
software on a daily basis (gcc, emacs, etc). I am by no means a
'diehard' fsf member.
Alexander, you dont help to educate me on these matters. I gain
nothing from your posts beyond irritation and puzzlement. I look for a
thread in the argument and find only vitriol. The fact that you are
allowed to continue on the list is testament to a commitment to
democracy and free speech (however illused). My local lug would have
banned you a long time ago.
I realize I am just adding to your enjoyment by answering you, but I
want you to know that if you are doing this to drive people away from
the list it is not working for me. Like Stephan I have my own
Alexander rule and though you have changed your email at least once in
the past few months. I will continue to block it.
General thanks to the others on the list (it is still worth it)
Michael
> _______________________________________________
> gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
> gnu-misc...@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
>
--
Michael Bubb
optPart, LLC - Hoboken, NJ
cel 201.736.0870
fax 201.377.1717
Dave (from the UK)
I'm no expert, but my interpretation is that there is nothing to prevent
you releasing these modules under the GPL with source code, without you
making the whole program GPL'ed.
Most commercial operating systems (AIX, IRIX, HP-UX etc) are all closed
source. But all ship with open-source applications such as the GNU
project 'wget'
http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/
The source to wget is available, but the source to the operating systems
is not (Solaris is a partial exception). None of these operating systems
need wget, but most will include it.
I know of a very nice commercial chess program that runs on a PDA
http://www.pocketgrandmaster.com/english/index.html
which can use open-source chess engines. The chess program ships with
one engine (closed source module) but can use others.
I don't see anything wrong with what you want to do myself.
BTW, as a half-way house on the rest of the program, could it be
released as open-source, but not GPL'ed? Sun's Solaris operating system
is done this way, with most of the source available under a fairly
restrictive license.
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/
Some of it remains closed source, as Sun are not the copyright owners on
parts of it - they just license the technology from somewhere else.
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month...@southminster-branch-line.org.uk
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)