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