Re: [Gimp-developer] distributing gimp with another program

2010-11-21 Thread Daniel Hornung
On Sunday 21 November 2010 08:48:47 ash oakenfold wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I'm using gimp for some image post-processing (via script-fu and the
 command line) and I'd like to include it in the distribution of my Flash
 application.
 
 I read the GPL and it says:
 
 *Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
 **covered by this License; they are outside its scope.***
 
 And on wikipedia it says:
 
 *The mere act of communicating with other programs does not, by
 itself, require all software to be GPL; nor does distributing GPL
 software with non-GPL software.*
 
 So, just to be clear, can I distribute gimp and use it to make a batch call
 from my program? Or does this violate the GPL?

Hi Ash,
I am not a lawyer but I think that distributing GIMP along with other non-free 
programs should be ok if those other programs just use it through the command 
line.  Of course you will still have to distribute GIMP under the GPL, which 
means that you will have to inform the recipients about the license and their 
right, and you will have to make sure (as stated in the GPL) that they can get 
the source code in an appropriate way.

HTH,
Daniel


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] distributing gimp with another program

2010-11-21 Thread Graeme Gill
Daniel Hornung wrote:
 I am not a lawyer but I think that distributing GIMP along with other non-free
 programs should be ok if those other programs just use it through the command
 line.  Of course you will still have to distribute GIMP under the GPL, which

Hmm. What's the command line got to do with it ? If a distribution (package)
has functionality that depends on GPL code, then that package is derived from
GPL code, so must meet the GPL licensing conditions. The mechanism is
irrelevant, the dependence is what counts. A non-GPL program that invokes
a GPL program via any mechanism sounds a lot like is has some dependence
on the GPL code. If there is functional dependence, then the mere aggregation
on the same media escape clause wouldn't seem to apply.

Graeme Gill.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] distributing gimp with another program

2010-11-21 Thread Ofnuts

On 11/21/2010 02:03 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:
 If there is functional dependence, then the mere aggregation
 on the same media escape clause wouldn't seem to apply.


Then everything written for Linux would have to be GPL because it has 
functional dependence on GPL code?

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] distributing gimp with another program

2010-11-21 Thread Christopher Curtis
Let me try to clarify one thing:

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Christopher Curtis ccurt...@gmail.com wrote:

 terms of the GPL.  Calling GIMP plugins directly gets fuzzier.  If
 they are scripts, it can be done.  If they are compiled code it is
 unclear.

I should have said 'If they are scripts that communicate via main()' -
ie, at the commandline.

If you have a python interpreter in your app and are loading python
scripts for GIMP, the two applications would have to share certain
data structures and calling conventions so there would be a
derivation.

I suppose both cases of calling plugins via a 'main' are borderline
whether the code is compiled or not.

But calling a GPL application from a closed application is allowable.

Chris
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] distributing gimp with another program

2010-11-21 Thread saulgoode
Quoting ash oakenfold conceptual.iner...@gmail.com:

 I'm using gimp for some image post-processing (via script-fu and the command
 line) and I'd like to include it in the distribution of my Flash
 application.
 :
 :
 So, just to be clear, can I distribute gimp and use it to make a batch call
 from my program? Or does this violate the GPL?

The provisions of the explicit exemption stated in the LICENSE file[1]  
strongly suggest that your use case would not violate the terms of  
GIMP's licensing. If interfacing through either libgimp or the  
Script-fu server mechanisms doesn't mandate GPL licensing of your  
code, then why should command line invocation of that same  
functionality demand it?

I would offer the following recommendations to further ensure compliance:

* Your program should still work -- and provide significant  
functionality -- even if GIMP is not available.

* The GIMP supplied by you needs to be provided separately from your  
software. Specifically, the recipient needs to be able to use, make,  
and share copies of GIMP even though they may not be permitted to do  
so with your software (do not supply GIMP plus your software within  
the same ZIP file or tarball).

* The GIMP supplied by you needs to be fully functional as a  
standalone application.

* Ideally, provide an _unmodified_ version of GIMP. If you do make  
modifications to the GIMP you provide, your modifications should not  
be exclusively useful to your project (please consider submitting your  
improvements upstream).

* The user needs to be able to substitute their own version of GIMP  
for the one provided by you. If you are providing a modified version  
of GIMP, your program's use of GIMP must not rely upon the  
modifications you've made.

* You must, of course, satisfy all distribution terms required by the  
GPL for the GIMP software you are providing. It is important that you  
ensure the source code is available upon request, and that recipients  
are apprised of this availability.

Finally, keep in mind that this advice (in addition to bearing no  
legal authority) is not necessarily applicable to other GPLed  
projects. GIMP's explicit exemption provision would be considered by  
many people to be an exception to the normal interpretation of the  
GPL's scope, not merely a clarification of an amibiguity. The GIMP  
project is within their rights to provide such an exception, but one  
should not conclude that other GPLed projects offer the same type of  
exception.



[1] http://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/tree/LICENSE

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] servers consolidation

2010-11-21 Thread Sven Neumann
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 22:09 +0300, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

 It appears that the plan for servers consolidation was never realized.
 And it looks like this is one of the problems behind some ongoing
 issues with availability of our sites.

That impression is not entirely correct. While the FTP service is still
on wilber, wilber.gimp.org got new hardware and provides enough disk
space now.

The problematic thing is that developer.gimp.org wasn't set up after the
hardware replacement. But as far as I can see this has been fixed in the
mean-time.

So as far as I can see all is well, isn't it?


Sven

PS: Please ask such questions on the gimp-web mailing-list next time.


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] distributing gimp with another program

2010-11-21 Thread Graeme Gill
Christopher Curtis wrote:

 The command line delineates program boundaries.  If your application
 makes a call to another program, then your application and the
 application being called are separate entities.  As they are separate
 entities, one is not derived from the other.

And I didn't say that one was derived from the other. Go back
and re-read what I said.

 It is dependent on it, yes, but dependence is not derivation.

The distribution/package that contains the GPL code is
(by default) derived from it. The package contains it,
so the package is derived from it.

 If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication
 between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in
 with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline
 case.

But this is all irrelevant. The fact that the package contains
GPL code, makes the package derived from the GPL code, even if
the non-GPL contents of the package are un-connected with the GPL
contents. The only out you have is if it is mere aggregation.

 Calling GIMP from your application is perfectly acceptable under the
 terms of the GPL.

Of course it is, as an end user. The GPL doesn't restrict how
you use the code. But as a distributor, it puts certain conditions
on things. And if you are shipping a package that contains GPL
code where the package is not mere aggregation (and the non
GPL code having functionality that is dependent on GPL code
seems a pretty strong hint I think, that this is not mere aggregation),
then you need to make sure that the package meets the GPL licensing
conditions.

Graeme Gill.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] distributing gimp with another program

2010-11-21 Thread Graeme Gill
Ofnuts wrote:
 Then everything written for Linux would have to be GPL because it has
 functional dependence on GPL code?

IMI, only if it is shipped as a package, and doesn't fall into
the Linux exception clause. (The Linux exception clause draws
a line between kernel and user processes.)

Graeme Gill.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] distributing gimp with another program

2010-11-21 Thread Christopher Curtis
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Graeme Gill grae...@argyllcms.com wrote:

 What counts
 is dependence.

I think all of your arguments are wrong, but on this point you may be
right.  I didn't realize that the GIMP is GPLv3 now, which is a very
different license.  GPLv3 is very fuzzy about linking.  The
appropriate FAQ then is this:

-
The difference between this [communicating at arm's length] and
“incorporating” the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of
substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two
programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one
program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the
GPL has to cover the whole thing.
-

Section 5 of the GPLv3 states only:

-
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
“aggregate” [...]
-

So our legal situation appears to be not an extension of the work and
not combined to make a larger program -- the significance of this
being under 'Section 5: Modified Source' instead of 'Section 4:
Verbatim Copies' is not entirely clear to me.



However, the GIMP LICENSE file states:

---
* If you create a program which invokes (or provides) methods within
  (or for) the GPL GIMP application core through the medium of libgimp
  or another implementation of the 'procedural database' (pdb) serial
  protocol, then the GIMP developers' position is that this is a 'mere
  aggregation' of the program invoking the method and the program
  implementing the method as per section 2 of the GNU General Public
  License.
---

This does not talk about running the GIMP from the command line
specifically but does state that you can call into the GIMP core via
libgimp or any other PDB interface and that is considered by the GIMP
team as a 'mere aggregation'.  Whether the command line is considered
an 'implementation of the PDB' is not explicitly stated.


*** (Sven, Mitch) ***

This LICENSE text should probably be updated as 'Section 2' of GPLv3
doesn't talk about aggregations - it's been moved into section 5.  It
might also be useful to address this issue directly as the GPLv2 is
generally well understood to allow command line usage as an
'aggregation', but GPLv3 seems to muddy this distinction.


NAL,
Chris
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] distributing gimp with another program

2010-11-21 Thread ash oakenfold
Hi,

Thx for all the feedback!

My application can function without gimp. I only use gimp to stitch together
and save a larger image as an optional last step.
I think I'll drop gimp and handle it myself, so I can have a single package
for distribution - in addition to open sourcing the whole thing.

Once again, thx for all the feedback, and if anyone is interested, here are
some screenshots from my drawing app:
http://www.conceptualinertia.net/aoakenfo/flash-drawing

Cheers,
Ash


On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Christopher Curtis ccurt...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Graeme Gill grae...@argyllcms.com
 wrote:

  What counts
  is dependence.

 I think all of your arguments are wrong, but on this point you may be
 right.  I didn't realize that the GIMP is GPLv3 now, which is a very
 different license.  GPLv3 is very fuzzy about linking.  The
 appropriate FAQ then is this:

 -
 The difference between this [communicating at arm's length] and
 “incorporating” the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of
 substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two
 programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one
 program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the
 GPL has to cover the whole thing.
 -

 Section 5 of the GPLv3 states only:

 -
 A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
 works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
 and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
 in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
 “aggregate” [...]
 -

 So our legal situation appears to be not an extension of the work and
 not combined to make a larger program -- the significance of this
 being under 'Section 5: Modified Source' instead of 'Section 4:
 Verbatim Copies' is not entirely clear to me.



 However, the GIMP LICENSE file states:

 ---
 * If you create a program which invokes (or provides) methods within
  (or for) the GPL GIMP application core through the medium of libgimp
  or another implementation of the 'procedural database' (pdb) serial
  protocol, then the GIMP developers' position is that this is a 'mere
  aggregation' of the program invoking the method and the program
  implementing the method as per section 2 of the GNU General Public
  License.
 ---

 This does not talk about running the GIMP from the command line
 specifically but does state that you can call into the GIMP core via
 libgimp or any other PDB interface and that is considered by the GIMP
 team as a 'mere aggregation'.  Whether the command line is considered
 an 'implementation of the PDB' is not explicitly stated.


 *** (Sven, Mitch) ***

 This LICENSE text should probably be updated as 'Section 2' of GPLv3
 doesn't talk about aggregations - it's been moved into section 5.  It
 might also be useful to address this issue directly as the GPLv2 is
 generally well understood to allow command line usage as an
 'aggregation', but GPLv3 seems to muddy this distinction.


 NAL,
 Chris
 ___
 Gimp-developer mailing list
 Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
 https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer