Re: License questions (Users-prolog Digest, Vol 85, Issue 4)

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:06:43 -0700

Hello everybody;

Daniel (Savard) and Duncan are right: the resulting native executable is limited by the GPL license.

To simplify user's life, the next stable version of gprolog should be fully released under the LGPL license (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html).

You can find the current (unstable) snapshot of 1.4.0 at:

http://gprolog.univ-paris1.fr/unstable/gprolog-20100713.tgz

I plan to release the stable version 1.4.0 in September or October.

Daniel

Alexander Wolfe a écrit : 
Thanks for the help guys. It makes more sense to me now.

-Alex

On Jul 13, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:

  
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:00:43 -0400
[email protected] wrote:

    
Send Users-prolog mailing list submissions to
	[email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Users-prolog digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. License questions (Alexander Wolfe)
  2. Re: License questions (Daniel Savard)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:42:50 -0700
From: Alexander Wolfe <[email protected]>
Subject: License questions
To: [email protected]
Message-ID:
	<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I have a couple of questions about the use of gprolog compiled programs. I
understand that gprolog is GPL software and that any modified version of its
codebase would be required to be released under a GPL compatible license.
What about programs compiled with gprolog? I know that gcc does not restrict
compiled programs to the GPL. What is the case here?

Thank you.

-Alex
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/users-prolog/attachments/20100712/29c38652/attachment.html

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:21:54 -0400
From: Daniel Savard <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: License questions
To: [email protected]
Message-ID:
	<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

2010/7/12 Alexander Wolfe <[email protected]>:
      
I have a couple of questions about the use of gprolog compiled programs. I
understand that gprolog is GPL software and that any modified version of its
codebase would be required to be released under a GPL compatible license.
What about programs compiled with gprolog? I know that gcc does not restrict
compiled programs to the GPL. What is the case here?

        
The answer is obvious, same license same terms. A license cannot
pretend to acquire rights on the original work of others. The idea of
a license is to protect something and in this case, the GNU-Prolog
compiler.

I know there is some copyrights and intellectual property lawyers
which are dessiminating the idea the GPL license extend to everything
developped using OSS. But they are wrong. There is plenty of examples
they are.

BTW, I am not a lawyer, so, if this is a very sensitive question for
you, ask one or more than one, but pick a good one.

      
Nor am I, but at the end of the COPYING file in the source install of Gprolog
you will find the following:
"
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General 
Public License instead of this License.
"
This is the LGPL loophole, allowing you to LINK your own code to
the Gprolog Libraries without releasing your code under the GPL.  

So your development environment is under the main GPL and you 
could not sell it without the full GPL viral recursion, but
target/end use products are not so encumbered, given that 
they are substantially different in function and purpose than
Gprolog itself.

Dhu

    
Regards,
-- 
-----------------
Daniel Savard



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Users-prolog mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog


End of Users-prolog Digest, Vol 85, Issue 4
*******************************************
      


_______________________________________________
Users-prolog mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog

  

_______________________________________________
Users-prolog mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog

Reply via email to