31–38 of 38 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Untrue. > By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Agree, but I think the GPL examples about communication mechanisms are pretty weird and sometimes absurd. Consider this scenario: Someone takes a GIMP plug-in licensed under GPL and converts it to a Photoshop plug-in (which is a DLL and shares memory space with Photoshop). According to GPL, Photoshop would now have to be open-sourced, but the person, who converted the plug-in does not have access to Photoshop source…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree, but I think the GPL examples about communication mechanisms are pretty weird and sometimes absurd. Consider this scenario: Someone takes a GIMP plug-in licensed under GPL and converts it to a Photoshop plug-in (which is a DLL and shares memory space with Photoshop). According to GPL, Photoshop would now have to be open-sourced, but the person, who converted the plug-in does not have access to Photoshop source…
IANAL, but: Distributing a photoshop plugin containing GPL code is a violation of the GPL as it is worded. If that part of the GPL is enforcable (no precedent that I am aware of) then you would essentially be pirating the GPL code, and can be sued for monetary damages by the owner of the copyright for that code.
That would only be true if the distributor failed to provide the source code to any interested party who asked for it. If he met that requirement, and if he included all the original copyright notices in the source along with his own, there's no violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but: Distributing a photoshop plugin containing GPL code is a violation of the GPL as it is worded. If that part of the GPL is enforcable (no precedent that I am aware of) then you would essentially be pirating the GPL code, and can be sued for monetary damages by the owner of the copyright for that code.
> Distributing a photoshop plugin containing GPL code is a violation of the GPL as it is worded. That would only be true if the distributor failed to provide the source code to any interested party who asked for it. If he met that requirement, and if he included all the original copyright notices in the source along with his own, there's no violation.
If he distributes his product as a monolithic and atomic item, wouldn't he be forced to release all parts of it if requested?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know, this can't happen. The author is being highly paranoid, presumably due to being misinformed.
When a clever person is so completely misinformed about a subject that's the very core of their business, I would rather call it FUD. And I'd also like to point out they aren't in the business of creating value, as an open source product offers more value than a black box: their want to create costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When a clever person is so completely misinformed about a subject that's the very core of their business, I would rather call it FUD. And I'd also like to point out they aren't in the business of creating value, as an open source product offers more value than a black box: their want to create costs.
I think you're right about FUD, but it's probably not him. I imagine he fell victim to the FUD, rather than intentionally creating it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're right about FUD, but it's probably not him. I imagine he fell victim to the FUD, rather than intentionally creating it.
I always find it suspicious when someone clever falls victim of - and further spreads - FUD that is beneficial to his/her business. Remember they sell proprietary (actually, re-licensed) software that's not under one of those "dangerous" and "viral" licenses.