> Sorry, but that's what the GPL is mostly about - to make mixing with
> proprietary software more difficult.
This is beginning to be totally beside the point but I think that
is a viewpoint of a Free software zelot. GNU at least claims to
be supporting Freedoms (of software development). I've not yet
to see any official intent to make mixing Free and proprietary
software more difficult. If and when this happens (making it
more difficult) it is a consequence of defending those Freedom ie
a by product of the process, not a goal.
> GPL software just favors other GPL (and free) software. To guote RMS,
> "Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free
> software developers must provide advantage fro each other".
Yes, agree with that, but I do not see how making life difficult
for Free software users provides advantage for the developers?
> Then there was indeed a confusion. I think what the installer does is
> that it distributes the octave binaries that are linked to MSVC++
> *dynamic* runtime libs (DLLs) and it also distributes these DLLs. And
> that's the problem.
Glad we clarified that.
>
> If the MSVC++ runtime library is a component of Windows, then it
> should not be distributed ("accompany the executable"), but the Octave
> binary can. If not, then the Octave binary can't.
I'm sorry but you lost me there by introducing and mixing accompanying
and distributing libraries and components. I will not try to untangle
what you said here nor interpret what you ment. Let's not go there.
>
> Now, if you substitute in an *arbitrary* proprietary library, then
> that's OK - this is what the GPL is supposed to do.
> Of course, the intent even in GPL2 was probably to exclude all
> compiler runtimes, but GPL2 fails to do so due to its wording.
>
See above, I'm beginning to loose the thread.
>> Distributing them along would seem to be something that the
>> GPL allows: "mere aggregation of another work <snip> does not bring the
>> other work under the scope of this License."
>
> Yes, but here it's linking *and* aggregation, and that seems not allowed.
I won't expand this discussion to the interpret of aggregation means,
this is already rather pointless discussion. I just reiterate that
we disagree in what "that is normally distributed with the major components
of the operating system on which the executable runs" means. Or I thought
that was the point. Let's agree to disagree, we have both presented our
case and as usual nothing seems to move the opponent from his dug-out.
>
> Examples are not definitions.
Oh really, you think you could actually pull of that giving an example of
something does not to at least some extent define it? Come on.
> GCC can be considered a component of Debian because it can be selected
> in installation, or downloaded via package manager.
Now where is that defined? Why the fact that Debian people have chosen
to let you install gcc on installation make it part of the system?
That is their prerogative but I do not see how that defines what
GNU authored GPL license means between yet two more parties?
> But you can't find
> MSVC++ on the windows DVD nor you can get it through window update.
Well, again we are going away from the real subject but the license text
recognized "offering equivalent access to copy" as a means for distribution
so the fact that you can download MSVC and Windows from their site sort
invalidates this sort of reasoning, because they are distributed together in
that definition of distribution (which is definition is in the license
text). But that is not my point.
> And there is otherwise no sign that MSVC++ would be a component of
> windows, other than the fact that they're both from Microsoft. I ask
> again: Is Salford Fortran component of Windows? If not, then what's
> the difference?
So? The language says that you are exempt from providing the source code
for (Salford Fortan) if you do not distribute it. And we are not
distributing any compiler?
> The only support you have shown is an *example* (in the parentheses)
> that I don't think applies to this situation.
> And I think that if you take two separate programs, Windows and
> MSVC++, then by all common sense you must assume neither is component
> of the other *unless there is evidence to the contrary*. Which you
> haven't shown.
I do not see how you do not see that the license text gives two examples of
components of an operating system. Kernel and compiler. And you say that
in the Windows case the kernel and compiler are two separate programs but
in some unspecified case (presumably GNU Linux) they are just parts of the
same program? All I see, ist that you willnot see.
>> Yes. And without mathematical quantifiers, that sentence you gave does
> not even make precise sense. So, pick yourself (all possibilities):
> "Every compiler is a component of any operating system (on which it runs)"
> "At least one compiler is a component of any operating system it runs on"
> "Every compiler is a component of at least one operating system it runs on"
> "At least one compiler is a component of at least one operating system
> it runs on"
>
> so, which one is, according to you, stated by GPL2?
The license is not just some hodgepodge write up generated
on spur of the moment, but a carefully drafter and considered legal
document, each word of which is carefully considered. So the compiler must
be something that is relevant to the license or program being licensed,
otherwise they would not have mentioned it in the first place. Because
this license is about licensing compiled programs that have source code and
object code forms it is clear to me that in the context of this paragraph
the compiler refers to any compiler that is used to compile the software in
question. If it is a Fortran program then this is about Fortran compiler.
If the operating system is Windows then it is about THE Windows Fortan
compiler that is used to compile the program.
But the license talks about, not the compiler but about "anything that is
normally distributed with the major components (compiler<snip>) of the
operating system." Now again, this "anything", can not be just, well
anything,it needs to be somehow relevant to what this paragraph of is about.
For example, in this context, the text of the constitution is not
'anything'.
So what could that 'anything' be? It is not the compiler nor the operating
system or part of it since the text says says this 'anything' is distributed
together with major parts of the operating system, so they are two different
things.
To me a very compelling 'anything' in this context is the standard libaries
which are normally distributed with the operating system as a whole or with
the compiler.
While I'm confident that this will not move you from you position I would be
confident to support my case with this sort of argumentation in a court.
>
>> And if that is any compiler why would it be mentioned at all in that clause?
>> So to me it is clear that the compiler is the compiler that is involved in
>> the making of the
>> program that is being licensed under GPL.
>
> I agree that was likely the intention, but "it's clear" doesn't help -
> the wording says otherwise. The fact that "a compiler X is a component
> of operating system Y" can't depend on whether you made any GPL
> software using it. It is an independent statement, and for any pair
> (X,Y) must be either true or false.
> So, according to you, X = MSVC++
> and Y = Windows makes it true. Fine. Is X = Salford Fortran and Y =
> MSVC++ also true?
I think you are confusing mathematics and logic with legal reasoning.
In law and legal documents a word may and often has several meanings
depending on the date, nature and field of the document and of the context
of the document so you cannot argue a legal case in pure logic terms.
For a very amateurish attempt at legal reasoning try my text above.
>
> GPL3 cleared up this problem. It clearly defines things.
Yes, it probably also create more but different issues. When ever
legal documents are drawn up to clear up things I fear that
every new clause needs a court case to entangle it.
cheers Kusti
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and
around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save
$200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco.
300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today.
Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
