On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
"Mixing" may have been too general. Correct that to "to make
exploiting of free software by proprietary software developers more
difficult".
>
>
>> 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?
>
I don't understand what you mean.
>> 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.
>
OK.
>
>>
>> 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.
I don't know what "defining to some extent" is. But if you give a car
as an example of a personal vehicle, that does not define car to be a
personal vehicle. There are cars that aren't personal vehicles.
>> 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?
>
The component is not defined anywhere. This is the instance of "common sense".
>
>> 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.
>
That has some merit, actually - at least that differentiates the
compilers. But I still think MSVC++ is not a component of Windows,
it's just both marketed by MS.
>
>> 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?
>
It says so only if Salford Fortran is a "component of an operating
system". Is it?
>
>> 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?
>
Basically, yes, if you substitute back "components" rather than
"parts" and "operating system" rather than "program" to match the GPL2
wording.
>
>>> 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.
I thin in the courtroom, this is called specullation.
> 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.
>
Yes, it is clear that that was the intent, but the wording makes it
problematic. The license explicitly talks about a "component of an
operating system", and therefore you need to substitute something both
for the component (Salford Fortran) and for the operating system
(Windows), and the result must make sense.
If Salford claims their compiler is not a component of any operating
system, then it's just not a component of any operating system. I also
claim that MSVC++ is not a component of Windows, that's all.
> 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.
If the compiler is a component of the operating system, which is what
we argue about.
> 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.
So would I. It's funny :)
>>
>>> 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.
Reasoning is all about mathematics and logic.
> 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.
>
Yes, I can. I may lose, no question, but I definitely can argue.
>
> 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.
>
So there will be another upgrade. Still, I think it never hurts to
clarify things.
--
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
