Hello Arthur,
I wish that I were as confidant about the "concern over GPL vs FOIA
licensing is just smoke" Please understand that I raised some questions to
promote discussion, I certainly don't have all of the answers. However, I
agree that GT.M and Vista are separate products and have different licenses,
and you are correct that distributing them together is possible and legal.
Your statement about modifying them and they been held to different licenses
is correct as well.
The problem is that I want to use and support Vista in our hospital complex.
However, as soon as I start changing Vista to fit my environment, it becomes
GPL and I have forked the code. Why, simply because I am not going to
release any code that is non-GPL. Right now, I can't use Vista or encourage
anyone else too simply because of its nonGPL status. In fact, GT.M is great
and potently useful, but without Vista GPL it is not as useful to me.
Todd Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Arthur B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:17
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: license issue: GT.M and VISTA
Ok, I finally understand what the concern is now, re: forking (thanks Bud!)
I guess, but I still think it's wrong. GT.M and Vista are and always will
be two separate things. If I distribute software, and some of it is GPL
software, that doesn't mean that everything I ship (or even sell) must also
be under GPL. The GPL is "sticky" -- but it doesn't infect everything it
touches! If I distribute a GPL MUMPS, and I also distribute a public-domain
Vista, that's fine. I can modify either and they each remain under the same
license. As long as they remain two separate products, they are just that
-- two separate products. There's nothing that prevents you from
distributing them that way, no matter how you modify either one. Vista is
independent of the MUMPS system on which it runs -- very carefully and
deliberately so! I think this concern over the GPL vs FOIA licensing is
just smoke.
Just my $.02
-art
Arthur B. Smith
Principal Prog. Analyst Voice: 573-884-4516
W226 Vet. Med. Bldg Fax: 573-884-4496
1600 E. Rollins Rd. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Columbia, MO 65211 ICQ: 30211122
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bud P. Bruegger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 5:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: license issue: GT.M and VISTA
>
>
> At 12:17 PM 08-11-00 -0800, Jim Self wrote:
>
> >How could there be any conflicts in running public domain
> applications on
> >top of a GPL runtime?
>
> Well, I suppose you're right when looking at distributing
> code only once
> and leaving it alone. When distributing VISTA combined with
> GT.M., say on
> a CD, I have to distribute VISTA under the GPL since GT.M.'s
> GPL requires
> this. And that seems possible for public domain software.
>
> However, the problem starts when someone modifies this code
> that is now
> under the GPL. For example, someone fixes a bug. The
> modified code is
> required to be GPL too and in consequence, it could not be
> merged back into
> the main VISTA distribution (unless that changed from public
> domain to
> GPL). I believe this is the same problem that Todd pointed
> out when he
> talked about forking. And I believe it is a serious one.
>
> --bud
>
> /-------------------------------------------------------------------\
> | Bud P. Bruegger, Ph.D. | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> | Sistema | http://www.sistema.it |
> | Information Systems | voice general: +39-0564-418667 |
> | Via U. Bassi, 54 | voice direct: +39-0564-418667 (int.41)|
> | 58100 Grosseto | fax: +39-0564-426104 |
> | Italy | P.Iva: 01116600535 |
> \-------------------------------------------------------------------/
>
