Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

GPL user restrictions ? (Developers)

posted by ecm Homepage E-mail, Düsseldorf, Germany, 23.06.2009, 13:05

> > > > The GPL is all
> > > > about the user. Isn't that what software should be?
> > >
> > > Where did you get that delusional idea? It is all about the author,
> > > otherwise it wouldn't burden the user with so many duties and pretty
> > heavy
> > > restrictions.
> >
> > Last time I read the GPL, most duties and restrictions were for the
> author
> > and co-authors (people modifying source code).
>
> Well, that depends on your view. For e.g. a library, users are more
> typically what you can co-authors.
If they only use a LGPL library for another program, the other program explicitly doesn't have to be GPL. Isn't that the use of the LGPL? If they want to distribute the library's binary along with the program, they have to provide the source as well.

> > Pure users (people that want to use a binary only) are able to obtain
> the
> > source code as per "the authors are required to provide source", but
> the
> > users don't have to obtain it. Note that a "pure user" in this sense
> doesn't (re-)distribute the program, he only uses it.
>
> Yes. I know the theory. And it works if you are the recipient of a linux
> distro, never use anything with a different license. Of course that works
> with any license, including the various licenses that GPL users frown so
> much on.
Until something requires recompiling a program, users don't really benefit from the source itself. What do you mean by "never use anything with a different license"? If the user runs a linux distro and gets some proprietary software (say, drivers or Windows programs for Wine) he can of course use that with his distro.

> There are some sideways related troubles though. E.g. Lazarus is a fine
> example. The core app is GPL, but some of the plugins are MPL. This
> combination is formally not compatible, but that only kicks in with
> distribution. There was some discussion about that (by e.g. excluding the
> plugin interface from the GPL), but the paranoid were afraid that evil
> people would overtake the entire IDE etc etc, so it wasn't done in the
> end.
And that GPL app is still distributed with MPL plugins? How evil. No, I don't really care. To get back on topic a bit, someone could say DOS drivers are "plugins" for the DOS kernel. (After all, they're specifically designed for the kernel and can only be used by it.) That won't stop anyone from using closed-source DOS drivers on GPL DOS kernels. It's obvious they're different programs (if nothing else, they're stored in different binaries), although there's a specific interface between them. Seeing it that way, isn't a plugin interface used because it doesn't void the GPL to use non-GPL programs with it?

Found something about that in the GPL (version 2, but version 3 has a similar phrase):

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Edit: I'd better include the phrase from the GPL 3 as well, because it says clearly there that you are allowed to run (but not distribute) the program without accepting the GPL:

9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

> But recently, with the portable versions popping up everywhere, it has
> become a problem, since one can't distribute a full app, and thus must
> link it on target on the enduser's systems. Requiring extra space, and a
> slow build step on a stick.
I don't understand the problem. Portable versions require compilation (or only linking) on the user's system, but other versions can work with provided binaries?

---
l

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22762 Postings in 2122 Threads, 402 registered users (0 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum