Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Case closed. You really seem to believe that your statements somehow become correct if you try to behave like a judge. Martin ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: REPOST: Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Part II Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] As for the US, Forward Inline Original Message Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch Subject: Re: Stallman rants about FreeBIOS Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] [... why the GPL just can't work under copyright law ...] Just in case you'll come across an idiot proclaiming that the GPL works as an agreement (apart from Germany... where contractual limitation of first sale principle is held to be invalid)... well, research the topic of enforceability of contracts of adhesion and contracts in general yourself. Here's some hints, so to speak. You don't get it. The GPL is not a contract. You need not agree to it if you don't want to, but nothing else gives you the right to redistribute. So unlike EULA and the other madness, you don't need some click-through or whatever else agreeing to sell your first-born. The GPL states the price to pay for certain uses of the software. Whether you are willing to pay that price is up to you. If not, then those uses are barred. Not by the GPL, but by copyright law. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:02:36 +0100, Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:39:11 +0100, Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can read about the position of the FSF here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation In particular, if the separate GPL'ed executable has no purpose on its own, but is created solely to circumvent the license of the library, then it is *not* okay. The quoted link seems to suggest that using pipes as IPC and execing a GPLed binary is a satisfactory work around. Not at all: | By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are | communication mechanisms *normally* used between two separate | programs. (Emphasis mine.) That suggests to me that the /mechanism/ of communication provides some hints... | But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, | exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be | a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger | program. ...but that the /semantics/ of communication is really decisive. That might be a fair interpretation except that dynamic linking is pretty much rules out even without taking semantics into account. IMO that plus the willingness to accept pipes and command-line arguments as normally ok adds up to an unjustified reliance on the mechanism of communication. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
