| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| 1clue wrote: | You can do lots of things with your house, but not anything. You can't run a meth lab, an opium den or a brothel, at least in the USA. You can't sell stolen goods from there. Depending on where you live and who you bought your land/house from, there may be laws regarding running your business from your house (zoning restrictions) or limits on what kind of animals you can keep (neighborhood covenants).
|
But the problem is not because you do that in your house, it's because you are against the law.
Entering your house is grant under strict conditions, justify to a judge or by a visible emergency in your house.
And real exception, i think "unwritten" everywhere, are firemen : if your neighbour's house is burning and firemen think going from your house to his is the way to do, i think they will destroy your door and process (well in real they will certainly more break a window).
It might not be exception at all, and against the law, but you'll have hard time complaining to a judge against firemen that were saving someone.
The door is a privacy wall, even unlocked, it doesn't mean you can open it freely.
And it goes the same for a car, you cannot break its window because a dog is in, the dog must be in emergency.
You don't lock your door to prevent someone to legally enter it, you lock it down to prevent thief and illegal person to enter it.
That's why if RF law state frequencies to use in public, you won't be against the law to use any frequencies in your house if you can keep that contain to your house, because your house is not a public place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| krinn wrote: | | 1clue wrote: | You can do lots of things with your house, but not anything. You can't run a meth lab, an opium den or a brothel, at least in the USA. You can't sell stolen goods from there. Depending on where you live and who you bought your land/house from, there may be laws regarding running your business from your house (zoning restrictions) or limits on what kind of animals you can keep (neighborhood covenants).
|
But the problem is not because you do that in your house, it's because you are against the law.
Entering your house is grant under strict conditions, justify to a judge or by a visible emergency in your house.
And real exception, i think "unwritten" everywhere, are firemen : if your neighbour's house is burning and firemen think going from your house to his is the way to do, i think they will destroy your door and process (well in real they will certainly more break a window).
It might not be exception at all, and against the law, but you'll have hard time complaining to a judge against firemen that were saving someone.
The door is a privacy wall, even unlocked, it doesn't mean you can open it freely.
And it goes the same for a car, you cannot break its window because a dog is in, the dog must be in emergency.
You don't lock your door to prevent someone to legally enter it, you lock it down to prevent thief and illegal person to enter it.
That's why if RF law state frequencies to use in public, you won't be against the law to use any frequencies in your house if you can keep that contain to your house, because your house is not a public place. |
Yes, the problem is lawbreaking in general. But we have safeguards to prevent breaking that law built into our houses. Not to prevent lawbreakers because ATTEMPTING to break into someone else's house is illegal too. We have safeguards to prevent someone else's actions from hurting us physically, emotionally or financially. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cord
Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 346
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Doctor wrote: | | Such a tree does exist and is FSF approved, Ututo. |
It's in past. Now Ututo based on Ubuntu. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oldgaro
n00b
Joined: 18 Dec 2017
Posts: 2
Location: Brazil
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FSF' freedom is not about you choosing what you will do but rather a freedom of big corporations software is stealing of us to only use it in as they see fit!
This discussion began with the wrong understanding on that.
FSF does not support anyone that is "friend" of evil big corps.
You don't have to agree nor disagree, it is their belief.
I try as much as I can not install any "big corp" software with a 94% rate of success but there is some I cant.
still, I totally agree with FSF!
fck big corps...
As for FSF opinion on Gentoo, well they are not exactly wrong, are they?
Though, it would be better for FSF skip all these "reviews" on distros choices or be more specific doing it!
It is all but unnecessary burden
_________________
VAI CORINTHIANS
https://gitlab.com/oldgaro - https://github.com/oldgaro/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fturco
Veteran
Joined: 08 Dec 2010
Posts: 1181
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The FSF is not an enemy of big corporations. The FSF is an enemy of proprietary software. Even a single individual in his basement can write and distribute proprietary software. And some big corporations also write free software, which is completely fine for the FSF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On top of that, I seriously doubt there's a single fortune 500 company that doesn't have a bunch of Linux boxes running throughout the company in various scenarios. Apache web server was not made for a hobbyist. It was made for professionals in datacenters. Same with much of free software.
Some of the core software packages we rely on were released by a company who owns the commercial version. Way too many hobbyists believe that there are two packages, a commercial version and then an open source version that "competes" with the commercial version when they both came from the same company.
Alternatively, I've heard so many comments about "crossover office" being a commercial company that "stole" wine and made something commercial out of it. The truth is that codeweavers released wine as open source and they also have crossover office, which uses genuine paid-for dll's from Windows to make better compatibility.
FSF doesn't like the idea of proprietary software, but the truth is they work in conjunction with closed-source software all the time. The founders of most Open Source projects get hired by big businesses all the time. Usually they insist that the software they write be open sourced, but not always. Tons of features in open source projects were put there because a commercial entity hired the designer of the FOSS app to add the feature.
There is an intimate, complex relationship between commercial interests and FOSS. It has always been this way, and it will always be this way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:50 am Post subject: Sorry, pjp |
|
|
@pjp: I'd like to apologise for this: | steveL wrote: | | YAF windoze refugee wanting stuff for FREE.. meh. |
It was a completely uncalled-for mischaracterisation.
I should have said that's how you came across, but I was really tired and stressed from long hours at work, so it ended up coming across as a statement about you, personally, which was not the intent.
My apologies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | | It's not that hard to dynamically link code, and if necessary make a lightweight implementation of an interface which links to gpl code (probably dynamically similar to an odbc connection). But lawyers get scared, especially when the app they're making sells for 6 figures. |
Rightly so; while it would not work (as both are linked) the intent is clear: to circumvent the license obligation, while still using the functional interface provided under linkage.
If you're thinking of doing the above, it's because you want to circumvent the license, or IOW break the law.
Yes, your lawyer will obviously advise against.
The same effect is at work with "localised RPC" (or inefficiency because we have an ulterior motive.)
The motive is clear to any reasonably well-informed observer, and so it would be to a Court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20490
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:17 pm Post subject: Re: Sorry, pjp |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | @pjp: I'd like to apologise for this: | steveL wrote: | | YAF windoze refugee wanting stuff for FREE.. meh. |
It was a completely uncalled-for mischaracterisation.
I should have said that's how you came across, but I was really tired and stressed from long hours at work, so it ended up coming across as a statement about you, personally, which was not the intent.
My apologies. |
Thank you, no worries. I've been called worse. And I am well aware that my opinion of the GPL(-3) is often not welcome in the Linux world.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:51 pm Post subject: Re: Sorry, pjp |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | I've been called worse. |
Is there anything that could upset or surprise someone crawling in ...
...the OTW area....
(scary music)
? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6068
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:37 pm Post subject: Re: Sorry, pjp |
|
|
| krinn wrote: | | pjp wrote: | | I've been called worse. |
Is there anything that could upset or surprise someone crawling in ...
...the OTW area....
(scary music)
? |
yes, Clinton pron
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | 1clue wrote: | | It's not that hard to dynamically link code, and if necessary make a lightweight implementation of an interface which links to gpl code (probably dynamically similar to an odbc connection). But lawyers get scared, especially when the app they're making sells for 6 figures. |
Rightly so; while it would not work (as both are linked) the intent is clear: to circumvent the license obligation, while still using the functional interface provided under linkage.
If you're thinking of doing the above, it's because you want to circumvent the license, or IOW break the law.
Yes, your lawyer will obviously advise against.
The same effect is at work with "localised RPC" (or inefficiency because we have an ulterior motive.)
The motive is clear to any reasonably well-informed observer, and so it would be to a Court. |
So you're saying it's illegal to use an Open Source JDBC driver on commercial code? Or vice versa, to use a closed-source JDBC driver on an open-sourced app? The plethora of drivers available clearly suggest otherwise.
There is no mainstream FOSS license I know of which prohibits dynamic linking to closed-source software. There are many which do NOT prohibit static linking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | | It's not that hard to dynamically link code, and if necessary make a lightweight implementation of an interface which links to gpl code (probably dynamically similar to an odbc connection). But lawyers get scared, especially when the app they're making sells for 6 figures. |
| steveL wrote: | Rightly so; while it would not work (as both are linked) the intent is clear: to circumvent the license obligation, while still using the functional interface provided under linkage. ..
The motive is clear to any reasonably well-informed observer, and so it would be to a Court. |
| 1clue wrote: | | So you're saying it's illegal to use an Open Source JDBC driver on commercial code? Or vice versa, to use a closed-source JDBC driver on an open-sourced app? The plethora of drivers available clearly suggest otherwise. |
No, I said what I said. By all means construct another statement in your head, "disprove" it (or dismiss it, more correctly), and tell yourself you've "won" an argument, if that helps. ;)
| Quote: | | There is no mainstream FOSS license I know of which prohibits dynamic linking to closed-source software. There are many which do NOT prohibit static linking. |
The plethora of GPL libraries and applications using them, which have to be licensed under the GPL, clearly suggest otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | 1clue wrote: | | It's not that hard to dynamically link code, and if necessary make a lightweight implementation of an interface which links to gpl code (probably dynamically similar to an odbc connection). But lawyers get scared, especially when the app they're making sells for 6 figures. |
| steveL wrote: | Rightly so; while it would not work (as both are linked) the intent is clear: to circumvent the license obligation, while still using the functional interface provided under linkage. ..
The motive is clear to any reasonably well-informed observer, and so it would be to a Court. |
| 1clue wrote: | | So you're saying it's illegal to use an Open Source JDBC driver on commercial code? Or vice versa, to use a closed-source JDBC driver on an open-sourced app? The plethora of drivers available clearly suggest otherwise. |
No, I said what I said. By all means construct another statement in your head, "disprove" it (or dismiss it, more correctly), and tell yourself you've "won" an argument, if that helps. 
| Quote: | | There is no mainstream FOSS license I know of which prohibits dynamic linking to closed-source software. There are many which do NOT prohibit static linking. |
The plethora of GPL libraries and applications using them, which have to be licensed under the GPL, clearly suggest otherwise. |
Which license, SteveL?
When an app is deployed and an external configuration file determines which implementation of an interface is used, and no particular implementation comes with or is configured with the commercial software, what Open Source license forbids linking of GPL software dynamically with commercial software when it does not require recompilation?
At that point, the original software vendor no longer has control of what implementation is used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6068
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | | steveL wrote: | | 1clue wrote: | | It's not that hard to dynamically link code, and if necessary make a lightweight implementation of an interface which links to gpl code (probably dynamically similar to an odbc connection). But lawyers get scared, especially when the app they're making sells for 6 figures. |
| steveL wrote: | Rightly so; while it would not work (as both are linked) the intent is clear: to circumvent the license obligation, while still using the functional interface provided under linkage. ..
The motive is clear to any reasonably well-informed observer, and so it would be to a Court. |
| 1clue wrote: | | So you're saying it's illegal to use an Open Source JDBC driver on commercial code? Or vice versa, to use a closed-source JDBC driver on an open-sourced app? The plethora of drivers available clearly suggest otherwise. |
No, I said what I said. By all means construct another statement in your head, "disprove" it (or dismiss it, more correctly), and tell yourself you've "won" an argument, if that helps.
| Quote: | | There is no mainstream FOSS license I know of which prohibits dynamic linking to closed-source software. There are many which do NOT prohibit static linking. |
The plethora of GPL libraries and applications using them, which have to be licensed under the GPL, clearly suggest otherwise. |
Which license, SteveL?
When an app is deployed and an external configuration file determines which implementation of an interface is used, and no particular implementation comes with or is configured with the commercial software, what Open Source license forbids linking of GPL software dynamically with commercial software when it does not require recompilation?
At that point, the original software vendor no longer has control of what implementation is used. |
The GPL...
You cannot link to a GPL licensed library without the parent then being bound by the GPL.This is why the LGPL was created
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_from_the_GPL
| Quote: | The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter allows the work to be linked with (in the case of a library, "used by") a non-(L)GPLed program, regardless of whether it is free software or proprietary software.[1] The non-(L)GPLed program can then be distributed under any terms if it is not a derivative work. If it is a derivative work, then the program's terms must allow for "modification for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications." Whether a work that uses an LGPL program is a derivative work or not is a legal issue. A standalone executable that dynamically links to a library through a .so, .dll, or similar medium is generally accepted as not being a derivative work as defined by the LGPL. It would fall under the definition of a "work that uses the Library". Paragraph 5 of the LGPL version 2.1 states:
A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
Essentially, if it is a "work that uses the library", then it must be possible for the software to be linked with a newer version of the LGPL-covered program. The most commonly used method for doing so is to use "a suitable shared library mechanism for linking". Alternatively, a statically linked library is allowed if either source code or linkable object files are provided.[2] |
Now some closed-source application could link to its own stub and then include a binary version of some library *IF* they had API+ABI compatibility...
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | 1clue wrote: | | steveL wrote: | | 1clue wrote: | | It's not that hard to dynamically link code, and if necessary make a lightweight implementation of an interface which links to gpl code (probably dynamically similar to an odbc connection). But lawyers get scared, especially when the app they're making sells for 6 figures. |
| steveL wrote: | Rightly so; while it would not work (as both are linked) the intent is clear: to circumvent the license obligation, while still using the functional interface provided under linkage. ..
The motive is clear to any reasonably well-informed observer, and so it would be to a Court. |
| 1clue wrote: | | So you're saying it's illegal to use an Open Source JDBC driver on commercial code? Or vice versa, to use a closed-source JDBC driver on an open-sourced app? The plethora of drivers available clearly suggest otherwise. |
No, I said what I said. By all means construct another statement in your head, "disprove" it (or dismiss it, more correctly), and tell yourself you've "won" an argument, if that helps.
| Quote: | | There is no mainstream FOSS license I know of which prohibits dynamic linking to closed-source software. There are many which do NOT prohibit static linking. |
The plethora of GPL libraries and applications using them, which have to be licensed under the GPL, clearly suggest otherwise. |
Which license, SteveL?
When an app is deployed and an external configuration file determines which implementation of an interface is used, and no particular implementation comes with or is configured with the commercial software, what Open Source license forbids linking of GPL software dynamically with commercial software when it does not require recompilation?
At that point, the original software vendor no longer has control of what implementation is used. |
The GPL...
You cannot link to a GPL licensed library without the parent then being bound by the GPL.This is why the LGPL was created
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_from_the_GPL
| Quote: | The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter allows the work to be linked with (in the case of a library, "used by") a non-(L)GPLed program, regardless of whether it is free software or proprietary software.[1] The non-(L)GPLed program can then be distributed under any terms if it is not a derivative work. If it is a derivative work, then the program's terms must allow for "modification for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications." Whether a work that uses an LGPL program is a derivative work or not is a legal issue. A standalone executable that dynamically links to a library through a .so, .dll, or similar medium is generally accepted as not being a derivative work as defined by the LGPL. It would fall under the definition of a "work that uses the Library". Paragraph 5 of the LGPL version 2.1 states:
A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
Essentially, if it is a "work that uses the library", then it must be possible for the software to be linked with a newer version of the LGPL-covered program. The most commonly used method for doing so is to use "a suitable shared library mechanism for linking". Alternatively, a statically linked library is allowed if either source code or linkable object files are provided.[2] |
Now some closed-source application could link to its own stub and then include a binary version of some library *IF* they had API+ABI compatibility... |
@Naib,
That's exactly the discussion. If some commercial software links to an interface, and during installation on the customer's server the installer chooses an implementation which includes some GPL code, that's a no-foul. No GPL code was delivered with the product, the interface being implemented is open but not restricted (say, freebsd or apache license) but the person installing at the customer site chooses that one.
Thank you for supporting my point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6068
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes and no... it comes downto how they provide the abstraction layer...
if they actually do link to a gpl library BUT don't ship the library, it doesn't change the fact it is linked and thus their software is now gpl'ed
if they link to their own library which happens to be API+ABI compatible to a gpl library then they are ok.... HOWEVER it is a slippery slope due to derived work & the onus will be on them to prove they provide compatibility via reverse-engineering rather than viewing/copying the code. IF it is shown they viewed the interface code of the library then this is derived work. But how can you proved someone viewed? this is legality and companies have lost
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If some commercial software links to an interface, and during installation on the customer's server the installer chooses an implementation which includes some GPL code, that's a no-foul. No GPL code was delivered with the product, the interface being implemented is open but not restricted (say, freebsd or apache license) but the person installing at the customer site chooses that one. |
That's a very convoluted, artificial scenario, wherein the hypothetical GPL library conforms to an external interface.
Most libraries don't have the exact same API and ABI as some other library, and are certainly not developed while keeping some other library's ABI in mind.
The ones that are (like glibc) tend to be licensed under the LGPL already (read up on the motivations for LGPL, if you want to know more.)
Fun as it is (or is not) exploring the fundamentals of why the GPL and LGPL exist, none of this affects the simple fact that there is a vast GPL codebase, using its own interfaces[1] precisely so that crapitalist leeches cannot pretend that they "never knew" they were linking to GPL code.
Good luck trying to disprove reality. I'm getting off the train now. ;-)
--
[1] It is an unfortunate fact of life that the system we live under, means that GPL authors cannot simply use a standardised interface that everyone else can use too, precisely for the reasons we've been discussing. The only way we could, is if there were no need for the GPL protections at all. And there clearly is.
Please do not make the mistake of believing the hype, that this is the exact same thing as "embrace, extend, extinguish": it is not.
Sticking a g on the front of the name of a function, in order to keep the software libre (so that the end-users' interests are always protected), has nothing to do with trying to discourage real computer usage, in order to coopt the work for private gain (by locking everyone else out.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's use real-world examples.
To start with, you write a closed-source commercial app which uses an ODBC driver. The driver does not ship with the code because the application designer does not know what database the app will be connected to.
It makes zero difference what ODBC driver was used to test the code, only that it was tested and a standard, compliant driver allows the app to work as advertised. The license on the ODBC interface (not the implementation) allows for free or non-free implementations.
The software vendor has absolutely no control over which driver you use to connect or on which database vendor is being connected to. If you, the application installer whose company purchased rights to the application, choose to install a GPLv2 driver then there's absolutely no way the software vendor could have prevented that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you're going to present "real-world examples", can we at least have some?
IOW be specific: which project? Give us the url.
Then maybe we can talk about "real-world examples", rather than hypotheticals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | That's a very convoluted, artificial scenario, wherein the hypothetical GPL library conforms to an external interface. |
Let's stop doing that. The discussion is becoming impenetrable because of this.
| Quote: |
Most libraries don't have the exact same API and ABI as some other library, and are certainly not developed while keeping some other library's ABI in mind.
|
Absolutely correct. And also not what I'm talking about anyway.
| Quote: |
The ones that are (like glibc) tend to be licensed under the LGPL already (read up on the motivations for LGPL, if you want to know more.)
Fun as it is (or is not) exploring the fundamentals of why the GPL and LGPL exist, none of this affects the simple fact that there is a vast GPL codebase, using its own interfaces[1] precisely so that crapitalist leeches cannot pretend that they "never knew" they were linking to GPL code.
Good luck trying to disprove reality. I'm getting off the train now.
|
Statistically speaking you never get off a 'train' on this forum once you're on it.
| Quote: |
--
[1] It is an unfortunate fact of life that the system we live under, means that GPL authors cannot simply use a standardised interface that everyone else can use too, precisely for the reasons we've been discussing. The only way we could, is if there were no need for the GPL protections at all. And there clearly is.
Please do not make the mistake of believing the hype, that this is the exact same thing as "embrace, extend, extinguish": it is not.
Sticking a g on the front of the name of a function, in order to keep the software libre (so that the end-users' interests are always protected), has nothing to do with trying to discourage real computer usage, in order to coopt the work for private gain (by locking everyone else out.) |
Let's use this scenario:
- Joe writes JoeApp. It is closed source.
- Joe's app is too slow.
- Joe's deadline approaches.
- Joe moves the slow functionality to a single library which implements an interface he designed.
- Joe loads that interface using an external configuration, the same way that JDBC or ODBC are loaded, so that he can improve the performance of the library later without doing a complete reinstall.
- Joe sends JoeApp to the customer with the slow implementation.
- Later, Joe discovers some FOSS software which implements approximately what he wanted to do for a few of the functions he needs to improve.
- Joe writes an implementation of HIS interface, linking to GPLv2 code. The implementation maps his api/abi differences to the version used by the GPL code.
- This implementation of Joe's library becomes GPLv2.
- Joe figures out speed improvements for the rest of his library, and writes that into the implementation.
- Joe publishes his library binary on his website, along with a link to his github account for the source code and a GPLv2 license.
- Joe sends an email to the customer, suggesting that better performance can be achieved through the new library.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As has been mentioned here on this thread already, most libraries under a GPL-style license are LGPL which makes this discussion irrelevant. However there are valid and legal ways that GPL code can be dynamically linked into a commercial app, and they are not necessarily in the control of the software vendor.
In my JoeApp example, the second or third updates to the library could be made by someone else unrelated to Joe or his company, and likewise Joe could make future implementations of his interface using completely closed source, since he never looked at the source on the GPL code. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The company I work for has approached Open Source projects and paid them to make additions or modifications to their libraries which benefited them and us.
In at least two of those situations, the project leaders had direct knowledge of how our apps are built. In all cases everyone involved knew we were working on closed-source apps. Nobody raised any questions.
That's not a rare occurrence in the FOSS world. In the real world, FOSS and closed-source software can cooperate pretty closely.
Peace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | If you're going to present "real-world examples", can we at least have some?
IOW be specific: which project? Give us the url.
Then maybe we can talk about "real-world examples", rather than hypotheticals. |
Unfortunately due to the NDA I signed, I can't give you that. There has been occasional oversight by people in charge of commonly-used Open Source projects.
Edit: Somehow this got around to me implying that my company uses GPL code linked to commercial code, when I was talking in the abstract. AFAIK there is no such thing. We appropriately link to open software in compliance with their license agreements. As far as I've ever seen, we use no code with a "pure" GPL. We do use GPL code with an amendment allowing commercial software, namely Oracle Java.
I've been with this company, directly or indirectly, since late 2000. If I suspected them of any wrongdoing, I would either approach them about it, or leave the company. As of today I'm an external contractor due to the fact that I live in a different state than the company's commercial presence.
For the record, I would not hesitate to follow my "Joe" example above. I don't believe it breaks either the letter or the intent of the GPL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6068
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
followup... just in case some people still think they have a personal right to infringe on others EMC profile...
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0215/DOC-349258A1.pdf
| Quote: | The Commission received a complaint from T-Mobile concerning interference to its 700 MHz
LTE network in Brooklyn, New York. On November 30, 2017, in response to the complaint
agents from the Enforcement Bureau’s New York Office confirmed by direction finding
techniques that radio emissions in the 700 MHz band were emanating from your residence in
Brooklyn, New York. When the interfering device was turned off the interference ceased. You
identified the device as an Antminer s5 Bitcoin Miner. The device was generating spurious
emissions on frequencies assigned to T-Mobile’s broadband network and causing harmful
interference.1
Section 15.5(b) of the FCC Rules states that operation of an intentional, unintentional, or
incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused.2
Section
15.5(c) of the Rules states that the operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease
operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing
harmful interference.3
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful
interference has been corrected. |
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
