I guess since we explicitly exempt libgimp and plug-ins, this discussion is purely of academic interest. Anyway - it interests me enough to ask a couple of questions.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 01:12:03PM +0200, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Now that library is calling GPL code, albeit via a network protocol. Is the client library in breach of the GPL?
Well, that's what the license says:
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".)
I've read and re-read this, and I'm having trouble figuring out how anyone can consider a network client as being a derivative work of the server. The client does not contain any of the server. The server exposes an API using an open protocol, and the client formulates requests to the server, and gets a response (still using xml-rpc as the example). At no stage does the client contain part of the server. The client can exist with an alternate, non-GPL implementation of the same server with no change (similarly, someone could conceivably use libgimpwire to implement a simple plugin-based batch processor and use the existing farm of GIMP plug-ins with no changes). The client and the server are distinct entities. Somewhere along the line, I don't get it. But that's OK :)
So I hope it's very clear now that "it depends".
Ummm.. no. And getting unclearer all the time.
-- Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer