Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Schwab,Wilhelm K" <[email protected]> > Date: October 13, 2010 2:46:31 PM GMT+02:00 > To: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> > Cc: "Fitzell, Julian" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [Pharo-project] License question > > Paolo, > > The language is not childish; it is a valid expression of how this looks to > others; I know, because I had it blow up in my face. I am fairly content to > use GSL for its feature set and working around its foibles, only because I > use it internally and GPL is not a concern. I got a cold dose of reality in > the form of resistance from other programmers - some of whom see the license > as a legal virus. After reading your "clone the API, then you can run fast > as GPL or slow as MIT," I am more than ever aware of just how on the mark > that characterization might be. > > Another indication of the extent of the problems with/from GPL arises from my > planned use of the Pharo Inbox. Put the code in there, and it's MIT; that's > good. But what mess does that cause with a binding to something that is GPL? > The answer is not to change the Pharo license, it is to exclude GPL code. I > can put something on my web site and allow people to grab it from there. > > The base of the GSL binding is (from memory) 100+ structure definitions (most > of which are correct in spirit but not yet tested) and 1800+ function > definitions. It ends up being something like 20,000 things that have to be > named and typed. They are not much good without wrappers that help with > memory management and control flow. I would like to make at least some of > the wrapper functionality available, but I am not willing to GPL it for fear > of future problems using my own code. If you are telling me that anything > that directly or indirectly calls GPL code becomes GPL on release, that will > impact how much of the code I can release. One solution would be to clone > and release just enough of the wrapper set to help people to roll their own > wrappers, which might eventually spawn a clean-roomed set of wrappers. A > good MIT library will eventually appear, and when it does, I want to be able > to move my higher level code to it. I will not hobble that goal for > short-term gains. Childish? Quite the opposite. > > Bill > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Paolo Bonzini [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paolo Bonzini > [[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:50 AM > To: Schwab,Wilhelm K > Cc: Fitzell, Julian; [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
