nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> Or am I missing something here?
> 
> You said:
> "For one: I can hire you to write a plug-in for me, never distribute the 
> plug-in, but distribute executable code produced by the plug-in."
> 
> That's perfectly acceptable.
> 
> "I can't, however, find that you've already anticipated my need, created 
> a proprietary plug-in, buy it from you"
> 
> That's not, because they are enforcing the GPL, rightfully or not.

Isn't that what I said?  I can do the first, but not the second?

> You don't even have to make your changes GPL'd for a GPL program if you 
> don't redistribute.

Right. But the plug-in, as far as I understand it, can't be proprietary.

>  > If you sell it to me, you can't stop me from distributing the plug-in
>  > without stopping me from distributing the final code.
> 
> Sell the proprietary plugin as in sell a copy or sell you the copyright 
> and code?

I don't know. I haven't tried to figure out what the GPL says about selling 
the copyright to a GPLed program. :-)

>  > If I hire you, I
>  > can distribute the resultant code without distributing the plug-in
>  > needed to create it. :-)
> 
> Thing I don't quite get is:  are you talking about the resultant code 
> from the gcc+plugin setup?  What is the difference from any code 
> generated from gcc?  You can license it anyway you like, no GPL needed.

No, you can't. That's what I'm saying.  If you use a GPLed plug-in to gcc, 
you can sell the resultant code. If you use a proprietary plug-in to gcc, 
you can't sell the resultant code.  That's what the license says, at least.

The original link was trying to figure out how to get proprietary plug-ins 
to not work *at all*, even if you never distributed the compiled code.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Isn't that what I said?  I can do the first, but not the second?

Assuming, that is, that you had intended to quote the entire sentence, which 
ended "and distribute the resultant executable output."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> But it seriously limits the use for open source software in commercial
>> products.
> 
>   GPL doesn't only limit the use of GPL'd software in commercial products,
> it limits its use in *all* products which are not GPL, including open
> source projects. Thus it's hugely restrictive.

Currently, closed-source program 'ccc' can link to BSD-licensed
library 'bbb', but not to GPL-licensed library 'ggg'. But 'bbb' can't link
to 'ggg' either, which is what you're complaining about.

This is because otherwise, bbb could link to ggg, then ccc could link to bbb
and end up indirectly linking to GPL code (ggg).

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> somebody wrote:
>> GPL neither protects, nor restricts the rights of anyone using any other
>> license.
> 
> It does so by preventing you from using a different license. The GPL
> prevents you from linking code with a different license to GPLed code. The
> MIT license doesn't.
> 
> If you can't see that, then I'm not sure what the problem is.
> 
>> Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. The author can pick any license that he
>> wants.
> 
> Unless he's authoring a plug-in for GCC.

You can make a BSD-licensed plug-in for GCC, but the combination of both
when run would be GPL.

Why does it even matter then?

Because a commercial company can take a single function (that doesn't
interact with gcc) from the BSD plugin and use it on its closed-source
program.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> FSF wants to figure out a technological way of forcing others to only GPL
> code that runs as a plug-in to gcc. I feel that's over the top. I know
> it's their right to do whatever the f__k they please with their code. I
> don't believe it's the case they can enforce that thru their current
> license.

Yes! And that was exactly my point when I created this thread.

> I believe that them using technological means to prevent closed 
> plug-ins from being written is similar to the technological means TiVo
> uses to prevent your code from running on their hardware, which FSF has
> complained about, hence making the FSF hypocritical.

The FSF didn't only "complain" about it; they created a whole new version of
GPL because of it.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Comments welcome.

What license do you apply to the contents of that post? Because it's
seriously worth redistributing.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> What license do you apply to the contents of that post? Because it's
> seriously worth redistributing.

Feel free to distribute it and attribute it to me if you would. :-)

It's just basic economics, tho.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message