Re: Licensing Issues for LC developers [was: Re: Reading PDF - a cry for help]
Graham, Yes, Kee is on the right track. For instance the commercial app "CutePDF" does exactly the same thing: http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Kee Nethery wrote: > FYI: > > The work around that I have seen used is to keep your code and the GPL code > completely separate. In fact, when someone downloads and installs your code, > the very first thing your code would do is ask people to approve the install > of the GPL code. Then if they say yes, download the binary and install it on > their computer. If they say no, let them know your software cannot function > without the GPL code and then offer them the option of getting a refund or > having your code download the GPL binary.. > > Thus, you ship just your code. They purchase just your code. Your code > installs the free GPL code if the user asks for it to be installed. In your > manual or help screens you provide links to the source of the GPL code. > > That process seems to be used by others. Of course, I am not a lawyer and I > don't even play one on TV so you should assume everything I have just written > is incorrect. > > Kee Nethery > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Graham Samuel wrote: > >> The applicable part of the GPL referring to compiled and complete versions >> of programs (such as GhostScript in binary form, which is what I intend to >> use) is Section 6. It does allow use of the compiled code, provided that the >> user is offered access to the source code (this is 6b). So Bernard, I think >> you are right and that Artifex is wrong - which means the use of 'free' >> software (using the term as GNU uses it) is OK. > > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > -- Chipp Walters CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Licensing Issues for LC developers [was: Re: Reading PDF - a cry for help]
My pleasure. I'm sure that there are plenty of discussions on the internet that will help you further understand what is possible and where the limitations are. It seems a shame to throw away a possible solution to a problem on a misunderstanding of the possibilities. My thoughts on the matter were based on my recollection of discussions with Richard years ago. I don't actually distribute any GPL software with my applications, so the possibilities and limitations are mostly of academic interest to me. Like Kee, I'm not a lawyer. I hope the suggestions on the other thread provide you with technical feasibilities. Let us know if your research uncovers issues that we laymen have missed. When I've tried to discuss the GPL with lawyer friends, they are very reluctant to give me a firm opinion of what is involved (it makes me wonder if they are really worth the social liability entailed in having them as friends). Bernard On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Graham Samuel wrote: > Thanks Bernard for that very interesting insight. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Licensing Issues for LC developers [was: Re: Reading PDF - a cry for help]
FYI: The work around that I have seen used is to keep your code and the GPL code completely separate. In fact, when someone downloads and installs your code, the very first thing your code would do is ask people to approve the install of the GPL code. Then if they say yes, download the binary and install it on their computer. If they say no, let them know your software cannot function without the GPL code and then offer them the option of getting a refund or having your code download the GPL binary.. Thus, you ship just your code. They purchase just your code. Your code installs the free GPL code if the user asks for it to be installed. In your manual or help screens you provide links to the source of the GPL code. That process seems to be used by others. Of course, I am not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV so you should assume everything I have just written is incorrect. Kee Nethery On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Graham Samuel wrote: > The applicable part of the GPL referring to compiled and complete versions of > programs (such as GhostScript in binary form, which is what I intend to use) > is Section 6. It does allow use of the compiled code, provided that the user > is offered access to the source code (this is 6b). So Bernard, I think you > are right and that Artifex is wrong - which means the use of 'free' software > (using the term as GNU uses it) is OK. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Licensing Issues for LC developers [was: Re: Reading PDF - a cry for help]
Bernard Devlin wrote (see his whole message at the end of this email): > You're either extremely knowledgeable about the GPL, or I think you > have misunderstood the GPL. The first is certainly not true, so the second is more than likely. I got my (hopefully wrong!) information from the site of Artifex, who maintain and sell the commercial version of Ghostscript and its derivatives. They say: > If your application (including its source code) is not licensed to the public > under the GNU GPL, you are not authorized to ship GPL Ghostscript or GPL > MuPDF with your application under the terms of the GNU GPL if any one of the > following is true: > > your application contains a copy of some or all of GPL Ghostscript or MuPDF; > your application is derived from, is based on, or constitutes a revision of > some or all of GPL Ghostscript or MuPDF; > your application includes one or more functions that use some or all of GPL > Ghostscript or MuPDF. > These criteria apply to your application as a whole. Even if only one section > of your application satisfies one of these criteria, you are not authorized > to ship GPL Ghostscript or GPL MuPDF with your application unless your > application, including all of its source code, is licensed to the public > under the GNU GPL. > > If your application (including its source code) is NOT licensed to the public > under the GNU GPL and you intend to distribute Ghostscript or MuPDF to a > third party for use with and usable by your application, you MUST first > obtain a commercial license from Artifex. > I perhaps naively believed all this without further research. I have now read the GPL - it is quite tough to follow, but I tried to test it on what I actually want to do, which is to distribute Ghostscript or an existing derivative of it unaltered along with my own application (written in LiveCode, a proprietary software system) and for sale as a product under 'normal' commercial terms. In the Preamble, the GPL states: > For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether > gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same > freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive > or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they > know their rights. The applicable part of the GPL referring to compiled and complete versions of programs (such as GhostScript in binary form, which is what I intend to use) is Section 6. It does allow use of the compiled code, provided that the user is offered access to the source code (this is 6b). So Bernard, I think you are right and that Artifex is wrong - which means the use of 'free' software (using the term as GNU uses it) is OK. Thanks Bernard for that very interesting insight. Graham PS I will return to the technical argument (which seems to be getting rather tetchy) about the use of IM, GhostScript etc. soon. I thought it better to keep the licensing discussion separate. On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 15:40:57 +0100, Bernard Devlin wrote: > You're either extremely knowledgeable about the GPL, or I think you > have misunderstood the GPL. > > The GPL v2 does not mean you cannot charge for re-distribution of GPL > code (there are companies who charge for the re-distribution of linux > on dvds). If your code is bound to GPL libraries and you distribute > that combined artifact then you might have issues. If your code calls > out to compiled programs (using shell() then there is no issue). A > very strict interpretation is that if your code is bound to libraries, > then you are bound to provide your souce should someone demand it, or > cease using the libraries in that case. There are those who dispute > that even binding to libraries does not fall within the GPL v2. > > GPL v3 was brought in to stop so many companies "exploiting" GPL on > the server-side (i.e. where there is no re-distribution of code). > Unless the code you want to use to provide such a web service is > licensed under GPL v3, I cannot see what the issue would be. I know > of very few projects using GPL v3. > > And not all open source licenses have the same copyleft implications > as the GPL. If you are distributing RunRev's ssl library with your > apps, you are re-distributing open source code (only this time it is > the Apache license + SSL license). It is always possible that > companies negotiate a separate non-GPL license for GPL code they wish > to incorporate and re-distribute. > > Anyway, I hope the first suggestion works for you so that you do not > even need to consider these issues. > > Bernard > > On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Graham Samuel wrote: > since mine is a commercial product, there would presumably be > licensing issues for a non-GNU developer. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lis
