Begin forwarded message:

> From: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
> Date: October 13, 2010 9:51:01 AM GMT+02:00
> To: "Schwab,Wilhelm K" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Fitzell, Julian" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] License question
> 
> On 10/12/2010 08:13 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>> nor do I want my code, other than the binding itself, affected by
>> GPL.
> 
> Code that uses the binding is obviously affected by the GPL, just like if you 
> used GSL directly in C.  It's not like using a different programming language 
> is a magic wand that makes the GPL disappear.
> 
> However, your code that does not use the binding will not be affected by the 
> GPL.  Code doesn't fall under the GPL just because it lived for a short time 
> in the same image.  In particular:
> 
> 1) the GPL does not kick in until you distribute the code.  As long as GPL 
> and non-GPL (or even GPL-incompatible) code resides in a private image (or 
> even circulates within an institution such as a company) there is no 
> distribution and the GPL is not involved at all.
> 
> 2) let's say you juxtapose GPL and X11-licensed (MIT) code in the same image. 
>  The non-GPL code doesn't use your bindings or any other GPL code, it's just 
> placed together in the same image. This time you distribute the image, and in 
> order to do so you must follow the GPL. However, you can still extract the 
> X11-licensed code and distribute _that_ code under its own original license, 
> or even as proprietary code since _that_ code's license is what counts.
> 
>> It would be a shame to have to limit the a release to just the
>> binding, but if GPL starts to infect anything that connects to the
>> binding
> 
> It doesn't "start to infect".  Please do not use such childish language.  The 
> GPL simply "applies" to anything that connects to the binding, just like it 
> would "apply" to anything that uses GSL using the C interface.
> 
> You probably would not say that using proprietary source code in Squeak or 
> Pharo "infects" it with a proprietary license.  You'd simply say "you have to 
> respect the license of the proprietary source code", or you violate the 
> copyright owner's rights.  The GPL is absolutely no different.  It tells you 
> what you can do and what you cannot do.
> 
> Very frankly: if you think the GPL has "infected" something, well, it didn't 
> do anything on its own, it was _you_ who did something stupid.
> 
> Paolo


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Reply via email to