On Friday, 19 December 2014 19:06:42 UTC, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > > Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 16:00:03 UTC, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > > > > > > >> Dima, in fact, it's not soooo easy with (La)TeX. It depends on how > > > >> you see it. One way is that TeX (the program) is a compiler that > > > >> translates the sources (i.e. .tex, .sty, and .bib, ... files -- > > > >> which can count as the program sources since TeX is a programming > > > >> language). Then the .dvi or .pdf file would be considered as the > > > >> compiled form of the sources. With this point of view, Waldek is > > > >> right. > > > > > > > > I don't get your point. There is no problem like this with GPL, and > I > > > > don't know why this was mentioned in the 1st place... Surely you can > > > > put out a software with a license saying that by using it you sell > > > > yourself into slavery, but this does not mean that something is > wrong > > > > with GPL... > > > > > > I never said that something is wrong with GPL. Quite the contrary. I'd > > > like to have GPL for FriCAS. > > > > > > >> But I don't really think that most people thing that way. > > > >> Unfortunately, there is no clear statement from the FSF about this. > > > > > > >> But also this is somehow a non-issue. If my published paper would > > > >> be GPL then I have to provide the .tex and .sty files. So what? > > > > > > > Why is that even mentioned? There are no GPL-licensed programs that > > > > tell you anything about copyright of the data you process with them. > > > > > > Although, I somehow see it like you, it is not that easy with (La)TeX. > > > > > > Let's try to make to other viewpoint clearer. There is TP (TeX the > > > program, i.e. the program that translates .tex+.sty into .dvi) and > there > > > is TL (the TeX language). All my .tex and .sty files are written in > the > > > TL. The TL is a programming language. TP is the compiler that > translates > > > my program (.tex + .sty) into binary form (.dvi). Now according to > GPL, > > > that would probably mean that if one .sty file is under GPL, the whole > > > .dvi is under GPL, so also all the respective .tex files that are used > > > to produce this .dvi are under GPL. > > > > > > > Your C, etc., programs also use *.h files, which might be under GPL > (e.g. > > on Linux lots of them are). > > This does not automatically put your own C program under GPL. > > Cf e.g. http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html > > > > Certainly, (La)TeX .sty files are macro files, just like .h files are. > > So the fear that GPLed .sty files can infect, license-wise, > > your own TeX files is unfounded. > > Have you read the link you provide? Key words are 'automatically' > and 'substantial'. You can not assume that including GPL '.h' file > will automatically bring your program under GPL. But as well > you can not assume that it will not.
sure: they talk about copying parts of headers into your source, not including them using C's #include or its equivalent. It goes without saying that #include can include GPL'ed headers in no-GPL code. > They write: 'It would take > a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros > > with substantial bodies) to do that'. But in other context it > turned out that 'substantial' can be as little as 10 lines. > Header files are special: since normally they specify interface > to a library I read opinions that using _declarations_ from > header files is just fair use. So if header contains no > executable code and no comments, then copyright on that > header is meaningless. > > Also, look at Bison: FSF claims that if you use GML feature > than Bison output falls under GPL. > IMHO this is no longer the case: http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Conditions.html > And it seems that > they do not make such claim in non-GML output only > because there are several competing programs, none > with such restriction. To make it clearer: Bison output > essentially concatenates tables derived from your code > with "skeleton" code from Bison. This could be argued > to be "mere aggregation", but after compilation you > can not separate tables from what came from "skeleton" > and linking clause of GPL applies. > > The whole disscussion started with 'fricasmath.sty' which is > rather small file. It is quite possible that a court would > decide that 'fricasmath.sty' contains too little copywritable > material to count. But in such case why bother with special > license? So discussing license we should assume that it > is 'substantial'. Lawyers may argue that for one reason or > another 'fricasmath.sty' affect (or not) status of document > using it. But the point is that we have no _clear_ indication > that it will not. Normally free projects use permissive > licenses in such case to avoid any doubts. > > > -- > Waldek Hebisch > [email protected] <javascript:> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
