Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Juha Laiho Date : Wed Aug 24 2005 07:15 pm "Joe Butler" said: >In once sense, if the idea behind the GPL, etc. is to benefit others, this >is a limitation that will reduce the number of people that can actually >benefit from it. A closed source app is not going to open its source just >so it can use some GPL. If the source was allowed to be used by all, >without the restrictions on commercial apps, that would benefit a lot more >people, wouldn't it? If I understand Stallman correctly, his view is that the community benefits the most from having more code opened. On the other hand, you can consider this as a form of trade. The price to use a GPL'ed component is to distribute your own application under the GPL (note, however -- distribution is the key -- so, if you build something strictly for your own use, and never distribute the product, GPL places no requirements). You then consider the value you percieve to get by keeping your own product closed against the value of the GPL'd component that you would use. If you value keeping your own code closed more than replacing the GPL'd part with something you yourself build from scratch, then by all means build from scratch. If, on the other hand, re-implementing the GPL'd component is so expensive (by some measure) that you have to use the GPL'd component, then you just have to pay the price: place your own code under the GPL. And, of course, any author is free to reconsider licensing of their own products, and to provide one-on-one licensing terms, so contacting the author (or, more properly, owner of rights) may be the best solution. >I think if I were producing a commercial app and wanted to use some >GPL, I'd just write an open source wrapper around the GPL stuff and >release the wrapper so that commercial apps were allowed to use it - >the wrapper might be a bit of a dog to use though ;-) Would that layer >circumnavigate the restrictions? You'd have hard time showing how the wrapper is not derived from the wrapped - which would place the wrapper under GPL (or a license compatible enough with GPL -- note, that the GPL places restrictions on the allowable licenses for such a wrapper). Which would, in essence, just end up with you having commercial applications accessing a library wrapped in GPL'd code, or, in short, commercial applications accessing GPL'd code. So, license-wise you'd be in your starting point, and technically you just added one unnecessary layer of indirection. GPL is devious - or work of a genius, depending on your point of view. -- Wolf a.k.a. Juha Laiho Espoo, Finland (GC 3.0) GIT d- s+: a C++ ULSH++++$ P++@ L+++ E- W+$@ N++ !K w !O !M V PS(+) PE Y+ PGP(+) t- 5 !X R !tv b+ !DI D G e+ h---- r+++ y++++ "...cancel my subscription to the resurrection!" (Jim Morrison) .