Ranier, I'm not sure I entirely agree with your statement: "The point here is that IUP project have nothing to do with it all. After all, who is possibly violating the GPL is the end user of the libraries (CD and IM). The IUP project only provides, as a courtesy, the source code of the GPL libraries to anyone who wants to use it or not, it does not oblige in any way to use them. And it is clearly documented, including licenses, in its official documentation, so that no one is in doubt."
I agree that all users are ultimately responsible for the licenses used within their projects. However, please take a step back and look at this as a new IUP user like myself. I started my project by evaluating a number of cross-platform frameworks: wxWidgets, Qt, NCurses, Nuklear, IUP. When evaluating a number of frameworks I relied on top level docs, and I even wrote the same simple app to evaluate high level features needed by my application. We decided to use IUP because of its: ease of use, feature set, licensing, etc. I think it is a little naive to think a new user evaluating a framework will know to look for third party licenses in every source directory when the top level overview/license sections indicate it's "free software, can be used for public and commercial applications". I believe that you feel things are "clearly documented" but this is from your intimate knowledge of the framework. As a new user this is not the case. It is even more confusing for a new user because the IUP/etc directories make no clear distinction between third-party and IUP framework code--at least for a new user. My reasoning for my initial email was not to cause a big fight in this list. I was bringing this to the attention of the list in case the maintainers or users were unaware of these issues. I was also looking for some guidance for best practices to resolve these issues. My suggestion was for a benign change to the top level docs to clearly list third party code that one should be aware of. If the maintainers of IUP don't want to do this, that is their decision. Again, my thought was a suggestion for [apparently debatable] improvement. No harm. Tysen ________________________________________ From: Ranier Vilela <ranier_...@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 7:37 AM To: r...@gnu.org Cc: iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions De: Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> Enviado: sexta-feira, 5 de junho de 2020 03:17 Para: Ranier Vilela Cc: arobinso...@cox.net; iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > FFTW is GPL, and not can be use with commercial closed products. >> MiniLZO is GPL and no can be use with commercial closed produtcs. >What you say is right in the basic point, but not stated correctly. >The incorrect aspect is the use of the words "commercial" and >"closed". Yes, it's a little confusing. I understand that there may be a commercial product, with open source. >It is incorrect to use the word "commercial" here. The GPL does not >distinguish between commercial activities and noncommercial acivities, >except in one very obscure case which does not apply here. >it is incorrect to use the word "closed" here. We shun the terms >"open" or "closed" because we do NOT advocate "open source". That >term stands for rejecting our values and principles, so we have never >advocated it and never will. >See https://gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html >for more explanation of the difference between free software and open >source. >The right way to state this basic point is that the GPL permits >including the GPL-covered code in a larger combined program >_only provided that_ the larger combined program is, as a whole, >released under the GPL. >In particular, to combine a nonfree program with GPL-covered code >violates the GPL. Yes, I think we all understand that. The point here is that IUP project have nothing to do with it all. After all, who is possibly violating the GPL is the end user of the libraries (CD and IM). The IUP project only provides, as a courtesy, the source code of the GPL libraries to anyone who wants to use it or not, it does not oblige in any way to use them. And it is clearly documented, including licenses, in its official documentation, so that no one is in doubt. >I don't have time to study the details of this case. >I can't keep up with my work now. Anyway, thank you very much for your clarification. regards, Ranier Vilela _______________________________________________ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users _______________________________________________ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
