On 14.10.2013 21:35, Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola) wrote: > Thank you Stefan. > > One point I was in doubt was that one you pointed at the end. If he used > a library to make a new tool, then he would need to open the source.
Yes, this is true. But he didn't use a library, he implemented a plugin that collected the vommand line parameters required for the job from whatever information he had and then called an external, stand alone enfuse binary to do the job. This enfuse binary actually counts as a stand alone executable (and, of course, has to adhere to the GPL because it is licensed so), but it is not linked to the plugin. Therfore, the plugin is not "tainted" by the GPL. And even if it where, there is no obligation in the GPL to provide a binary for free: You can charge whetever you want to for the binary (or the distribution of the changed source code), but you must provide the source code for your binary and allow third parties to use them and build upon them without further obligations (apart from the GPL) or additional license fees. This, by the way, is the reason why coperates hate the GPL: You _can_ charge your customers, but you don't have a monopoly because you have to provide the sources, too. This allows any competitor to build a modified (fixed?) version of your binary because they get access to the sources. Again , I'm not a laywer, and I'm prepared to stand corrected by whoever has managed to get her/his head around the subtilities of licensing in general. > Well, I didn't find the source code in the site, but anyway, the license > "donationware" looks pretty honest to me, mainly because he doesn't fix > any amount. Yes, I agree with the donationware aspect here. However, when taking a look at the site mentioned, I can not help to mention a couple of points: o there is no mentioning of the GPL origin of the various enblend binary variants offered for download o there are no version informations of these binaries o therfore, it is not possible to download the appropriate source from the official locations, even if those would have been mentioned o there is no link to the sources used for the binaries offered o there is no attribution for the ingenious developpers of enblend (which is not requested by the GPL, but should be common sense by any SW developper worth his grain of salt) I don't know this developper, and she/he may may have a seperate license agreement with the developpers of enblend that is not GPL based and therefore frees her/him from the requirements of the GPL. But in this case, I'd expect at least a mentioning of the license (and the origins of the software). In the end I have to agree that this offer at least leaves a very bad taste in your mouth. Again, IMNAL. But you can't hang this developper because she/he asks for a donation on GPL licence grounds, from my point of view. Regards Stefan Peter -- "In summary, I think you are trying to solve a problem that may not need to be solved, using a tool that is not meant to solve it, without understanding what is causing your problems and without knowing how the tool actually works in the first place :)" Jeffrey J. Kosowsky on the backuppc mailing list
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
