Active Topics
-
Porting apps to Leste (29)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Arno_11 - 3 days, 7 hrs ago -
Install Fonts in N900 (68)
to Maemo 5 / Fremantle by teroyk - 4 days, 10 hrs ago - more...
|
2010-04-12
, 19:39
|
|
Posts: 307 |
Thanked: 157 times |
Joined on Jul 2009
@ Illinois, USA
|
#2
|
My feeling is that this is completely legal and would stand up in court as long as the original modules weren't just stub programs and actually did allow something productive to be done. In other words, as long as this wasn't a completely blatant attempt then there is nothing illegal about it.
It could even be obvious and be legal as long as there was some original functionality.
It could even be obvious and be legal as long as there was some original functionality.
|
|
2010-04-12
, 19:42
|
|
Posts: 1,746 |
Thanked: 2,100 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#3
|
You can't have a discussion about "Getting around the GPL" without bringing the morality into it as the GPL is making a moral statement.
You can't link proprietary software to GPL libraries unless those libraries are licensed under the LGPL. Not even through a weasly shim layer you play license games with. The only exception to this rule is with the Linux kernel, where GPL stubs are used to adapt a proprietary driver blob.
You can't link proprietary software to GPL libraries unless those libraries are licensed under the LGPL. Not even through a weasly shim layer you play license games with. The only exception to this rule is with the Linux kernel, where GPL stubs are used to adapt a proprietary driver blob.
Originally Posted by mmurfin87
Then why bother going through the effort of adapting to the GPL modules, unless you're just looking to freeload? On top of that, I believe there are bits in the GPL3 that were made to counter such attempts at legal dodges.
My feeling is that this is completely legal and would stand up in court as long as the original modules weren't just stub programs and actually did allow something productive to be done. In other words, as long as this wasn't a completely blatant attempt then there is nothing illegal about it.
It could even be obvious and be legal as long as there was some original functionality.
|
|
2010-04-12
, 19:43
|
|
Posts: 466 |
Thanked: 418 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#4
|
It sounds to me like what you want is something that is LGPL'd. I believe that linking to GPL'd code isn't allowed, but then I also think that any of the libraries are already LGPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
Then again, there are things like the nVidia binary blob that in essence has a GPL'd... crap, I can't recall what they called it, but it sounded like shank! Anyhow, it has a sort of wrapper than then talks to the binary blob for the driver. Similar to what you're talking about.
Now if you're talking about having GPL'd extensions as a separate add on to a proprietary application.. I'm not sure. I wouldn't think there would be a problem there.
Edit: the post above was made at the same time as mine and the word I was looking for was SHIM.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
Then again, there are things like the nVidia binary blob that in essence has a GPL'd... crap, I can't recall what they called it, but it sounded like shank! Anyhow, it has a sort of wrapper than then talks to the binary blob for the driver. Similar to what you're talking about.
Now if you're talking about having GPL'd extensions as a separate add on to a proprietary application.. I'm not sure. I wouldn't think there would be a problem there.
Edit: the post above was made at the same time as mine and the word I was looking for was SHIM.
 |
|
2010-04-12
, 19:44
|
|
Posts: 1,635 |
Thanked: 1,816 times |
Joined on Apr 2008
@ Manchester, England
|
#5
|
ok
so lets put this in perspective.
you have gpl app/widget/library/tool called appG
it performs a certain function.
you aim to completely rewrite appG with a proprietary version which replicates the functionality of appG and is fuzzy compatible with its parameters and api
just so you can switch it out sometimes?
answer me this, if you went to the trouble of rewriting appG yourself and it works - why the hell would you bother saying you have a dubious method of circumventing the gpl?
its not like its a selling point, people won't buy your app just because of it?
so lets put this in perspective.
you have gpl app/widget/library/tool called appG
it performs a certain function.
you aim to completely rewrite appG with a proprietary version which replicates the functionality of appG and is fuzzy compatible with its parameters and api
just so you can switch it out sometimes?
answer me this, if you went to the trouble of rewriting appG yourself and it works - why the hell would you bother saying you have a dubious method of circumventing the gpl?
its not like its a selling point, people won't buy your app just because of it?
__________________
liqbase sketching the future.
like what i say? hit the Thanks, thanks!
twitter.com/lcuk
liqbase sketching the future.
like what i say? hit the Thanks, thanks!
twitter.com/lcuk
 |
|
2010-04-12
, 19:50
|
|
Posts: 1,391 |
Thanked: 4,272 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#6
|
If you need legal advice, please consult a laywer, not this forum.
Nevertheless, this link might be of interest to you (GPL and linking on Wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Gen..._derived_works
Nevertheless, this link might be of interest to you (GPL and linking on Wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Gen..._derived_works
|
|
2010-04-12
, 19:53
|
|
Posts: 402 |
Thanked: 229 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Missouri, USA
|
#7
|
From what understand from reading the linked post and the linked abstract from the GPLv2, I think he is saying something more like:
AppG has been written which does FunctionA. He happens upon a GPL'd library that provides FunctionB. Rather than reinvent the wheel, he wants to add FunctionB to AppG without having to release AppG under the GPL itself. As such, he writes place-holder code, that is, StubB which he incorporates and distributes with AppG. Once AppG is installed, the option to download FunctionB is included.
While I'm not a lawyer, what I can gather from the relevant links is that doing the above is only legal if AppG doesn't rely on FunctionB to function properly -- that is, there is already some functioning code, and FunctionB is simply an alternative, not a requisite.
Actually, now that we're talking about it, this kind of reminds me of the CyanogenMod (android) fiasco with google. The key difference there is that the CyanogenMod doesn't require google apps to work, but is compatible with them.
AppG has been written which does FunctionA. He happens upon a GPL'd library that provides FunctionB. Rather than reinvent the wheel, he wants to add FunctionB to AppG without having to release AppG under the GPL itself. As such, he writes place-holder code, that is, StubB which he incorporates and distributes with AppG. Once AppG is installed, the option to download FunctionB is included.
While I'm not a lawyer, what I can gather from the relevant links is that doing the above is only legal if AppG doesn't rely on FunctionB to function properly -- that is, there is already some functioning code, and FunctionB is simply an alternative, not a requisite.
Actually, now that we're talking about it, this kind of reminds me of the CyanogenMod (android) fiasco with google. The key difference there is that the CyanogenMod doesn't require google apps to work, but is compatible with them.
 |
|
2010-04-12
, 19:58
|
|
Posts: 4,672 |
Thanked: 5,455 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Springfield, MA, USA
|
#8
|
Better still, why not ask lawyers who work with the GPL. Actual lawyers--not just a wiki. 
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
Introduction:
We provide legal representation and other law-related services to protect and advance Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS). Founded in 2005, the Center now represents many of the most important and well-established free software and open source projects.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
Introduction:
We provide legal representation and other law-related services to protect and advance Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS). Founded in 2005, the Center now represents many of the most important and well-established free software and open source projects.
|
|
2010-04-12
, 20:02
|
|
Posts: 307 |
Thanked: 157 times |
Joined on Jul 2009
@ Illinois, USA
|
#9
|
Originally Posted by aspidites
That is exactly what I'm talking about. Apparently I didn't explain myself clearly enough.
From what understand from reading the linked post and the linked abstract from the GPLv2, I think he is saying something more like:
AppG has been written which does FunctionA. He happens upon a GPL'd library that provides FunctionB. Rather than reinvent the wheel, he wants to add FunctionB to AppG without having to release AppG under the GPL itself. As such, he writes place-holder code, that is, StubB which he incorporates and distributes with AppG. Once AppG is installed, the option to download FunctionB is included.
While I'm not a lawyer, what I can gather from the relevant links is that doing the above is only legal if AppG doesn't rely on FunctionB to function properly -- that is, there is already some functioning code, and FunctionB is simply an alternative, not a requisite.
Another example is this: Microsoft uses DLLs extensively to modularize functionality in Windows. If tomorrow they released, as an optional download and not to be bundled with any distritbution of Windows, a DLL that replaces one that already exists, but is released under the GPL, they are not automatically obligated to put Windows under the GPL despite Windows then linking to that GPL library.
|
|
2010-04-12
, 20:06
|
|
Posts: 1,746 |
Thanked: 2,100 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#10
|
Originally Posted by mmurfin87
While you could try that, it would be utterly ridiculous. Replacing a non-functional or minimally-functional stub and expecting users to swap in a GPL'd library to give your application functionality pushes off any potential GPL violation to them.
That is exactly what I'm talking about. Apparently I didn't explain myself clearly enough.
Another example is this: Microsoft uses DLLs extensively to modularize functionality in Windows. If tomorrow they released, as an optional download and not to be bundled with any distritbution of Windows, a DLL that replaces one that already exists, but is released under the GPL, they are not automatically obligated to put Windows under the GPL despite Windows then linking to that GPL library.
Or it might inspire someone to replace your program with a GPL'd equivalent. Witness how fast Git was built up to replace BitKeeper (despite use of GPL'd code not being the actual issue there.)
 |
| Tags |
| pointless, ridiculous |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:09.
I was just sitting around thinking about this earlier and came up with a concept that I though might work. Then a bing search brought this link up and it is basically what my idea is about.
Assume that I write a program with well defined links where GPL code would fit. Assume that I write library modules that define those links and link to GPL code through those modules.
Assume that before distribution I replace those modules with ones that don't use any GPL code, but just use dummy code/data, or even completely different libraries licensed appropriately for my use. Then I release my program under whatever proprietary license I want.
So far, since I'm not distributing any GPL code, this is all perfectly valid and legal.
Now that my program is released under its proprietary license, I offer, as part of its own package completely separate from the original program, updated modules for that program that do in fact use the GPL and comply with the GPL in every way.
The original program can be as proprietary as it wants to as long as it doesn't distribute any GPL code, even if GPL modules are available for separate add on.