Re: [Iup-users] Source code license comments; IUP/CD/IM notes
Hi The API of a GPL library is not protected by the GPL. In fact FSF claim that APIs should be public. So, other people can create alternative libraries using the "same" API. Even GNU do this. See for example the R language (reimplementation of S language), GNU Octave (a free software version of MathLab program and language) or GNUstep libraries (an alternative to MacOS Cocoa). All this with many functions and API in common. Also, see the FSF position at Oracle vrs Google: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/fsf-statement-on-court-of-appeals-ruling-in-oracle-v-google The API could be there, but if isn't a derivative work (a modified version of the original source code at the GPL package) and isn't linked with a GPL package, there isn't problem. Regards On 6/6/20 9:19 AM, Andrew Robinson wrote: PS -- "The project itself does not violate the GPL in any way" Remember that GPL is a copyleft license, and that appears to mean that any software that is written based on using or calling any GPL component, automatically means that the entire project falls under the GPL license. I am looking at the source code for IUP right now and it has source code that incorporates GPL components via hard-coded Application Programming Interface (API) calls, a fact that is also reflected in the documentation for the IUP API. Therefore it is irrelevant if a user/programmer uses those APIs or not. What is relevant is that if IUP incorporates any GPL components, even in an API call, would seem to imply that IUP by default must also fall under the GPL license. So is IUP really GPL in disguise or is it something else? I think we should let the lawyers decide this matter amongst themselves because I'm not sure anymore. Regards, Andres On 2020-06-06 at 6:54 AM, "Andrew Robinson" wrote: On 2020-06-05 at 5:39 PM, sur-behoffski wrote: G'day all, [Sorry for breaking the thread -- digest strikes again...] Like RMS, I strongly dislike "Open Source" as an umbrella term, and strongly prefer "Free (as in Freedom)" or "Libre" (e.g. LibreOffice): The underlying concepts are massively, massively different. Speaking of "underlying concepts", from the history and philosophy of GNU on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU, we can read where it says "The goal [of GNU] was to bring a completely free software operating system into existence. Stallman wanted computer users to be free to study the source code of the software they use, share software with other people, modify the behavior of software, and publish their modified versions of the software. This philosophy was later published as the GNU Manifesto in March 1985". Has that philosophy massively, massively changed since then? Not that I can see. Speaking of "massively, massively different", from the FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GNU LICENSES at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney, we can read where it says "Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge". Do you expect me to believe that "free" software means "there is no limit on what price you can charge" for it? Okay, so enough of your word games (and theirs), let's get a third opinion >from some subject matter experts, say like the OSI (Open Source Initiative). The OSI specifically states on their website at https://opensource.org/faq#free-software, that "'Free software' and 'open source software' are two terms for the same thing". Wow! That makes it sound like they aren't all that "massively, massively different" to me. All this word play alone is a very good reason to always be skeptical of open-source/free software licenses, especially US-centric ones basically claiming to be your best friend. But to get back to the actual topic here, the issue isn't the difference in meaning between the word "free" and the term "open-source". That is merely a red herring. The issue here is what does the GNU license say you can or cannot do with your product if you incorporate any of their products into your products API? It says your product will by default fall under the GNU license, and (according to OPEN SOURCE LICENSES EXPLAINED at https://resources.whitesourcesoftware.com/blog-whitesource/open-source-licenses-explained), "GPL is a copyleft license. This means that any software that is written based on any GPL component must be released as open source. The result is that any software that uses any GPL open source component (regardless of its percentage in the entire code) is required to release its full source code and all of the rights to modify and distribute the entire code". You can't gaslight me with your word games here, so don't even try. Regards, Andres ___ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Re: [Iup-users] Source code license comments; IUP/CD/IM notes
PS -- "The project itself does not violate the GPL in any way" Remember that GPL is a copyleft license, and that appears to mean that any software that is written based on using or calling any GPL component, automatically means that the entire project falls under the GPL license. I am looking at the source code for IUP right now and it has source code that incorporates GPL components via hard-coded Application Programming Interface (API) calls, a fact that is also reflected in the documentation for the IUP API. Therefore it is irrelevant if a user/programmer uses those APIs or not. What is relevant is that if IUP incorporates any GPL components, even in an API call, would seem to imply that IUP by default must also fall under the GPL license. So is IUP really GPL in disguise or is it something else? I think we should let the lawyers decide this matter amongst themselves because I'm not sure anymore. Regards, Andres On 2020-06-06 at 6:54 AM, "Andrew Robinson" wrote: >On 2020-06-05 at 5:39 PM, sur-behoffski wrote: >>G'day all, >> >>[Sorry for breaking the thread -- digest strikes again...] >> >>Like RMS, I strongly dislike "Open Source" as an umbrella term, and strongly >>prefer "Free (as in Freedom)" or "Libre" (e.g. LibreOffice): The underlying >>concepts are massively, massively different. > >Speaking of "underlying concepts", from the history and philosophy of GNU on >Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU, we can read where it says "The >goal [of GNU] was to bring a completely free software operating system into >existence. Stallman wanted computer users to be free to study the source code >of the software they use, share software with other people, modify the >behavior of software, and publish their modified versions of the software. >This philosophy was later published as the GNU Manifesto in March 1985". Has >that philosophy massively, massively changed since then? Not that I can see. > >Speaking of "massively, massively different", from the FREQUENTLY ASKED >QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GNU LICENSES at >https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney, we can read >where it says "Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? >Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of >the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no >limit on what price you can charge". Do you expect me to believe that "free" >software means "there is no limit on what price you can charge" for it? > >Okay, so enough of your word games (and theirs), let's get a third opinion >from some subject matter experts, say like the OSI (Open Source Initiative). >The OSI specifically states on their website at >https://opensource.org/faq#free-software, that "'Free software' and 'open >source software' are two terms for the same thing". Wow! That makes it sound >like they aren't all that "massively, massively different" to me. All this >word play alone is a very good reason to always be skeptical of >open-source/free software licenses, especially US-centric ones basically >claiming to be your best friend. > >But to get back to the actual topic here, the issue isn't the difference in >meaning between the word "free" and the term "open-source". That is merely a >red herring. The issue here is what does the GNU license say you can or cannot >do with your product if you incorporate any of their products into your >products API? It says your product will by default fall under the GNU license, >and (according to OPEN SOURCE LICENSES EXPLAINED at >https://resources.whitesourcesoftware.com/blog-whitesource/open-source-licenses-explained), >"GPL is a copyleft license. This means that any software that is written based >on any GPL component must be released as open source. The result is that any >software that uses any GPL open source component (regardless of its percentage >in the entire code) is required to release its full source code and all of the >rights to modify and distribute the entire code". > >You can't gaslight me with your word games here, so don't even try. > >Regards, >Andres ___ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
Re: [Iup-users] Source code license comments; IUP/CD/IM notes
On 2020-06-05 at 5:39 PM, sur-behoffski wrote: >G'day all, > >[Sorry for breaking the thread -- digest strikes again...] > >Like RMS, I strongly dislike "Open Source" as an umbrella term, and strongly >prefer "Free (as in Freedom)" or "Libre" (e.g. LibreOffice): The underlying >concepts are massively, massively different. Speaking of "underlying concepts", from the history and philosophy of GNU on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU, we can read where it says "The goal [of GNU] was to bring a completely free software operating system into existence. Stallman wanted computer users to be free to study the source code of the software they use, share software with other people, modify the behavior of software, and publish their modified versions of the software. This philosophy was later published as the GNU Manifesto in March 1985". Has that philosophy massively, massively changed since then? Not that I can see. Speaking of "massively, massively different", from the FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GNU LICENSES at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney, we can read where it says "Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge". Do you expect me to believe that "free" software means "there is no limit on what price you can charge" for it? Okay, so enough of your word games (and theirs), let's get a third opinion from some subject matter experts, say like the OSI (Open Source Initiative). The OSI specifically states on their website at https://opensource.org/faq#free-software, that "'Free software' and 'open source software' are two terms for the same thing". Wow! That makes it sound like they aren't all that "massively, massively different" to me. All this word play alone is a very good reason to always be skeptical of open-source/free software licenses, especially US-centric ones basically claiming to be your best friend. But to get back to the actual topic here, the issue isn't the difference in meaning between the word "free" and the term "open-source". That is merely a red herring. The issue here is what does the GNU license say you can or cannot do with your product if you incorporate any of their products into your products API? It says your product will by default fall under the GNU license, and (according to OPEN SOURCE LICENSES EXPLAINED at https://resources.whitesourcesoftware.com/blog-whitesource/open-source-licenses-explained), "GPL is a copyleft license. This means that any software that is written based on any GPL component must be released as open source. The result is that any software that uses any GPL open source component (regardless of its percentage in the entire code) is required to release its full source code and all of the rights to modify and distribute the entire code". You can't gaslight me with your word games here, so don't even try. Regards, Andres ___ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions
De: Richard Stallman Enviado: sábado, 6 de junho de 2020 03:56 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. ]]] >> 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). >I do not know the facts of this, but it sounds like the developers of IUP >are encouraging users to link UUP together with GPL'd libraries. >That may be infringement. I cannot agree with that statement. What if I, as a developer, want to create free code, based on the work distributed by the IUP project? Wouldn't I be benefiting, from all the work already done, wouldn't I be complaining, or criticizing, or saying that this is a shame? But if, on the contrary, as a developer, I want to create non-free code, based on someone's work, whoever it is, it is necessary, very careful and a lot of careful research, so as not to violate the GPL. >Does IUP tell users that they can't link IUP and those GPL'd libraries >into one combined program? Are we talking about children? A project, is it necessary to take hands and cross the street? For more than 20 years, I know that I cannot combine GPL to create non-free code, even though I call it a commercial product (wrongly). It is not in the assignments of any projects, to say what users can and cannot do, with respect to GPL. The project itself does not violate the GPL in any way. regards, Ranier Vilela ___ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
