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 <bdrun...@gmail.com> 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 <livf...@mac.com> 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://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
