Re: Clarifying the GnuPG License
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:58, ekl...@gmail.com said: IANAL either, but wonder whether hard-coding the GPG program name and arguments in your binary would not be sufficient to consider your program as linked to the GPG executable. Running a program is not restricted and you don't even need to com,ply to the GPL. The GPL is only about distribution. Using a string in a non-GPL program to spawn gpg is just fine unless you have heavily tweaked gpg to work around the GPL. FWIW, the technical process of linking is not relevant to check whether a software is a derived work. It needs to be decided case by case, Fortunately there are a couple of pretty solid hints to decide whether it is a derived work. See the GPL FAQ for details. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Clarifying the GnuPG License
Henry Hertz Hobbit wrote: The last time I looked at it, I had to install GPG4Win or one of the GPG 1.x installs before I put Enigmail in THunderbird on Windows. EnigMail is licensed under MPLv2/GPLv2 to avoid licensing issues. If Enigmail doesn't bundle when they have compatible licensing then neither should you bundle. Licensing was discussed when we considered bundling GnuPG. It had little to do with the decision not to bundle, AIR. -John -- John P. Clizbe Inet: John (a) Gingerbear DAWT net SKS/Enigmail/PGP-EKP or: John ( @ ) Enigmail DAWT net FSF Assoc #995 / FSFE Fellow #1797 hkp://keyserver.gingerbear.net or mailto:pgp-public-k...@gingerbear.net?subject=HELP Q:Just how do the residents of Haiku, Hawai'i hold conversations? A:An odd melody / island voices on the winds / surplus of vowels signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Clarifying the GnuPG License
On 6/15/2013 6:50 PM, John Clizbe wrote: Licensing was discussed when we considered bundling GnuPG. It had little to do with the decision not to bundle, AIR. I can confirm this. According to my recollection, the argument was all right, so what *shouldn't* we bundle, then? Once you bundle GnuPG with Enigmail you have to take responsibility for both packages. And then people will ask, well, why don't you release your own Thunderbird for [insert my OS here] that has Enigmail and GnuPG preconfigured? Some projects (GPGTools) pride themselves on doing just this, on creating a single installer that drops everything onto your system in a preconfigured state. It works for them and we're happy it works for them. But given the perpetual shortage of developer time on Enigmail, and the limited support staff... it doesn't make sense for us. What a lot of people don't recognize: Enigmail is written by only one guy -- Patrick Brunschwig. He has a full-time job and hacks on Enigmail in his spare time. That places some severe constraints on the size of the engineering we can do. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Clarifying the GnuPG License
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:49:39AM +0200, Nils Faerber wrote: IANAL but from my understanding: 1. by invocation of the commandline commands: Yes 2. invocation of GnuPG exe: Yes 3. Linking, dynamically or statically, against a GnuPG DLL, presumed that it is licensed under GPL: No IANAL either, but wonder whether hard-coding the GPG program name and arguments in your binary would not be sufficient to consider your program as linked to the GPG executable. This would mean the program would be bound by the GPL terms. But, again, this is only a supposition, and you should get proper legal advice. Cheers, Leo ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Clarifying the GnuPG License
Hi, Since GnuPG comes under the GPL, I would like to clarify if a person's proprietary software makes use of GnuPG purely by invocation of the commandline commands, and the GnuPG exe's and DLL's are bundled unmodified with the person's proprietary software, can the person use GnuPG commercially in this manner without having to publish his/her source code? -- Nav ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Clarifying the GnuPG License
Am 12.06.2013 07:24, schrieb Navin: Hi, Hi! Since GnuPG comes under the GPL, I would like to clarify if a person's proprietary software makes use of GnuPG purely by invocation of the commandline commands, and the GnuPG exe's and DLL's are bundled unmodified with the person's proprietary software, can the person use GnuPG commercially in this manner without having to publish his/her source code? IANAL but from my understanding: 1. by invocation of the commandline commands: Yes 2. invocation of GnuPG exe: Yes 3. Linking, dynamically or statically, against a GnuPG DLL, presumed that it is licensed under GPL: No The DLL usage would require the DLL to be licensed under LGPL, which is the very reason why LGPL was invented. Im am not sure which parts of the GnuPG suit are licensed under which license though, e.g. if the GnuPG DLL (if such exists at all) is licensed GPL or LGPL. Cheers nils -- kernel concepts GmbH Tel: +49-271-771091-12 Sieghuetter Hauptweg 48 D-57072 Siegen Mob: +49-176-21024535 http://www.kernelconcepts.de ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Clarifying the GnuPG License
On 06/12/13 10:49, Nils Faerber wrote: Am 12.06.2013 07:24, schrieb Navin: Since GnuPG comes under the GPL, I would like to clarify if a person's proprietary software makes use of GnuPG purely by invocation of the commandline commands, and the GnuPG exe's and DLL's are bundled unmodified with the person's proprietary software, can the person use GnuPG commercially in this manner without having to publish his/her source code? IANAL but from my understanding: 1. by invocation of the commandline commands: Yes 2. invocation of GnuPG exe: Yes 3. Linking, dynamically or statically, against a GnuPG DLL, presumed that it is licensed under GPL: No IANAL either, but that is also my understanding. If you do ship GnuPG with a proprietary application under options 1 or 2, you also have to include the GnuPG source code (or an offer to provide it on request). Just providing a link to the main GnuPG site (or a mirror) is technically not sufficent (unless you enter into an agreement with the person that operates that site to provide the downloads on your behalf). ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Clarifying the GnuPG License
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/12/2013 09:49 AM, Nils Faerber wrote: Am 12.06.2013 07:24, schrieb Navin: Hi, Hi! Since GnuPG comes under the GPL, I would like to clarify if a person's proprietary software makes use of GnuPG purely by invocation of the command line commands, and the GnuPG exe's and DLL's are bundled unmodified with the person's proprietary software, can the person use GnuPG commercially in this manner without having to publish his/her source code? IANAL but from my understanding: 1. by invocation of the commandline commands: Yes 2. invocation of GnuPG exe: Yes 3. Linking, dynamically or statically, against a GnuPG DLL, presumed that it is licensed under GPL: No The DLL usage would require the DLL to be licensed under LGPL, which is the very reason why LGPL was invented. Im am not sure which parts of the GnuPG suit are licensed under which license though, e.g. if the GnuPG DLL (if such exists at all) is licensed GPL or LGPL. I am in agreement on the constraints Nils Faerber gives. You were not specific as to the OS but since most distros of Linux have GhuPG bundled I am assuming a Windows OS target. Merging any of the GnuPG / PGP4WIN files into your install folder may get you into trouble. It is because it makes it seem like you own the binaries. You don't so they should not be in your app folder. There are 76 DLL files in the main folder for 2.0.17 (GPG4WIN). Licensing for things like GPGOL DLL is LGPL. Most other DLLs do not give me the licensing information (looking at actual strings in the binary files). All the 46 EXE files I looked at were GPLv3 but I didn't look at all of them so some may be GPLv2. Bascially, consider the GPG4WIN bundle to be a GPLv3 product. The last time I looked at it, I had to install GPG4Win or one of the GPG 1.x installs before I put Enigmail in THunderbird on Windows. EnigMail is licensed under MPLv2/GPLv2 to avoid licensing issues. If Enigmail doesn't bundle when they have compatible licensing then neither should you bundle. I would have people download and install GPG4WIN themselves. Under no circumstances link in any of the DLL files to avoid licensing issues. gpg.exe and some other EXE files and iconv.dll are in the %ProgramFiles%\GNU\GnuPG\pub folder which is added to the %PATH% in the install for command line use. Ergo, there is no need to bundle if you use gpg.exe on the command line. HHH -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRuMOuAAoJEMhFIk/IOUbwbtEH/Rn/JAJHN0+FFE7JT/id2dYO qoSSdQov8CX5exaNHXnBHr4SSzmalrcCkkbfSHbyl0bSoR85FRqX2N5AZOurZt7I koi4cEVzoRatNxAsLn+drSjbVwg88P+BGDEVK/22BuO/wdLB8yPeXshPGbNOaJAh 3fJWpjI3IBBGIzg54Wm8CiQ3WsVBF2BbOxzJMaaChx29p3JrfFCoZP5FiVhNiPV0 ZiHFay3DUhHjfCfpSv6eRsqXV+TP+bAzKe0V2XkDh/OK39QK7d9ZnW3EnfuxsV7m gnUCH1cxyISDE/DmdnVFFOxap3bOmcOfqkvh58qBGtIqzF5qqkknT5mS7FTN6lo= =69/h -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
