GPL License discussion

[Peet]

GPL License discussion

[AF]

Pxtl,

Item A is GPL

Item B is under a GPL compatible licence

Item C is closed proprietary code

I believe what your saying is that we cant be right because if we like C to B to A then we can we sidestep C and A being incompatible by using a go between. This isnt the case however, as in this case, A and B are compatible but if we then link the closed source code to B in the same work, then B would be violating the GPL licence of A.

This does not apply however to situations where C is an OS component, or C is a dll plugin, because the GPL makes provisions for code such as drivers or Operating system components, and in the dll or plugin case, the code for C would not need to use code from A or B to build.

Its also possible for A B and C to link together and not violate the GPL, as long as what is made is not distributed. Once that work is available outside of private means however then the GPL licence of A would be violated.

Also, the GPL does not cover the output of a program, so if C was produced by A or B then that would not violate the licence either unless A and B were rebuilt using C as a dependency.

[Peet]

Also, the GPL does not cover the output of a program, so if C was produced by A or B then that would not violate the licence either unless A and B were rebuilt using C as a dependency.

What if B was a quine?

[smoth]

Aware of that. I'm specifically referring to Lua and Bos/Cob. My point is that others are saying "GPL or a compatible license", and I'm saying "technically no - GPL only".

It's a minor stickling point, but I'm a pedant.

GPL only requires gpl compatible, argh is already pissing me off, fuck dude, did you read the damn sticky? are you REALLY making something? If so just worry about your own project! Stop trying to dictate the behaviors of others.

[KDR_11k]

So I should stick a GPL on my stuff? It's PD so the GPL would be unenforceable anyway...

[zwzsg]

Keep it PD, and add a notice that this PD may or may not devolve into a GPL depending on how you interpret Spring's licensing scheme.

[Argh]

For more information on this topic in general... please read here:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-l ... leLicenses

Specifically:

Public Domain

Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL.

[KDR_11k]

Keep it PD, and add a notice that this PD may or may not devolve into a GPL depending on how you interpret Spring's licensing scheme.

Into an unenforceable GPL.

[Soul]

Now, i know very little of all this.

But if Pxtl would, by some apocalyptic event, be right there is an easy way of solving it.

Let all game modders "not" release their mods for spring. lets just say that they make their mods for... hm cyberspace paperweight.

And then all the players "steals" their mods which for some "unknown" reason is 100% compatiable with Spring.

And the modders, who are extremly "kindhearted" won't sue the poor cyberspace pirates, cause they pity them too much.

Because code can't possibly become GPL trough theft right?