Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8427 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-12-29 09:30 -0800 |
| Last post | 2012-01-03 16:09 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 09:30 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 10:34 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 10:50 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 12:11 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 17:58 -0500
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 16:26 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:40 -0500
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 15:21 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-31 05:51 -0500
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-31 10:48 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:35 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:41 -0500
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 22:12 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-30 13:58 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 17:03 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-31 21:10 -0500
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 05:21 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-01-02 00:45 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 17:59 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 16:23 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-02 01:27 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 18:35 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:47 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-01-01 19:03 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-01 21:19 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 17:35 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 16:36 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-02 14:18 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 05:14 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 19:16 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 14:09 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 17:37 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-30 11:15 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 09:56 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-29 19:44 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:51 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-30 07:55 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 10:48 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-31 13:49 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 13:21 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 05:53 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 16:41 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 11:04 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:44 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-01 10:12 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-01 15:34 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-01 08:50 -1000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 13:13 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-02 10:46 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 14:17 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 12:39 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 05:43 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-03 11:53 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2012-01-03 13:23 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 13:06 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 06:14 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 15:53 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 09:19 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 09:46 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 15:12 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-04 03:43 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 22:53 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-06 07:30 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-06 14:19 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-06 16:06 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-06 10:26 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-06 22:16 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-08 07:18 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-08 07:16 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-06 07:33 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-06 08:12 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-08 09:02 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-08 07:23 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-08 14:07 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-08 08:32 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 08:36 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 07:46 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 08:23 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-08 17:07 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 10:48 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 11:10 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-09 11:01 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 17:26 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-11 03:00 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-11 12:10 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-11 13:21 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-11 05:57 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-11 16:17 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-11 09:21 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-11 16:35 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-11 11:01 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-11 18:55 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-13 07:56 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-13 08:42 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-13 19:20 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-13 14:01 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-14 03:37 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-14 11:57 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-11 09:32 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-09 01:58 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-03 16:09 +0000
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 05:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dc8f3ba4-cfe6-4b4b-a067-a11a8341a869@q7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8630 |
On Jan 3, 8:21 am, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:51:32 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote: >> cas_n...@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) writes: >>>I'm not aware that it is possible to have copyright protection on the >>>API (the word and the parameters passed) of a function/word, but I >>>might be wrong. >> If an API has only one implementation, any work that uses that API is >> considered (by apparently enough lawyers that I have not heard of a >> test of that thinking in court) a derived work of the implementation >> (even if distributed separately), so the licenses of the >> implementation and the work have to be compatible to allow >> distribution of the work. > An interesting thought, but I don't think it's right. > Mono is an opensource implementation of the .NET framework and its > APIs. (You can run .NET apps with the Mono runtime). Prior to Mono, > the only implemnentation of C# and CLI was .NET itself. Mono is > widely used, BTW. So according to the above, until Mono was released, .NET code was a derived work of the .NET framework. After Mono was released, with multiple implementations of the same API available, that no longer held true. Your claim does not seem to contradict Anton's claim. You can only have copyright on an _implementation of_ an API ~ you would need a form of patent to have intellectual property on the API itself ~ but so long as its the sole implementation, how would you argue that a work _dependent_ on that API is _not_ a derived work from that implementation? OTOH, in a setting where there are multiple implementations of that API available, the sole dependency on the original implementation no longer exists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jdvb3h$n5m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8632 |
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 05:53:26 -0800, BruceMcF wrote: > On Jan 3, 8:21 am, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:51:32 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote: >>> cas_n...@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) writes: >>>>I'm not aware that it is possible to have copyright protection on the >>>>API (the word and the parameters passed) of a function/word, but I >>>>might be wrong. > >>> If an API has only one implementation, any work that uses that API is >>> considered (by apparently enough lawyers that I have not heard of a >>> test of that thinking in court) a derived work of the implementation >>> (even if distributed separately), so the licenses of the >>> implementation and the work have to be compatible to allow >>> distribution of the work. > >> An interesting thought, but I don't think it's right. > >> Mono is an opensource implementation of the .NET framework and its >> APIs. (You can run .NET apps with the Mono runtime). Prior to Mono, >> the only implemnentation of C# and CLI was .NET itself. Mono is widely >> used, BTW. > > So according to the above, until Mono was released, .NET code was a > derived work of the .NET framework. After Mono was released, with > multiple implementations of the same API available, that no longer held > true. > > Your claim does not seem to contradict Anton's claim. > > You can only have copyright on an _implementation of_ an API ~ you would > need a form of patent to have intellectual property on the API itself ~ > but so long as its the sole implementation, how would you argue that a > work _dependent_ on that API is _not_ a derived work from that > implementation? > > OTOH, in a setting where there are multiple implementations of that API > available, the sole dependency on the original implementation no longer > exists. You're right of course. I was too strict in parsing his post. I assumed (wrongly) that by "any work that uses that API" he included any new implementation of the API. Re-reading his post, he obviously meant "any program that links to the library that implements that API". Cheers, Arnold
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 11:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4a177843-02f2-47f3-83c4-c03ad955d267@cs7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8427 |
On Dec 29, 10:30 am, Brad <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are GPL applications written for commercial (or other non-GPL) Forths > compatible with GPL? According to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs > it seems they are not. Maybe it's much ado about nothing. If a Windows executable isn't "fully usable in a free environment", who cares? Windows is not a free environment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-30 12:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Dec30.134443@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #8427 |
Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> writes:
>Are GPL applications written for commercial (or other non-GPL) Forths
>compatible with GPL?
If you want to write such an application, and you have doubts that the
result can be distributed, the way to go would be to add an exception
to the licence of the application that allows it.
>What constitutes a library in Forth? The CORE wordset? Non-ANS
>extensions? If I use "dot", that is statically linked to #, which is
>statically linked to UM/MOD, HOLD, etc.
These are all standard words, so your application would not be
specific to the proprietary Forth system, so there is certainly no
difficulty there. Thinks become more interesting if your application
uses features that are specific to one Forth system.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-01 10:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jdpbja$4hp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8427 |
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:30:54 -0800, Brad wrote: > Are GPL applications written for commercial (or other non-GPL) Forths > compatible with GPL? According to > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs it seems they are > not. > > What constitutes a library in Forth? The CORE wordset? Non-ANS > extensions? If I use "dot", that is statically linked to #, which is > statically linked to UM/MOD, HOLD, etc. The "library" is an intrinsic > part of the Forth implementation. You can't just roll your own GPL Forth > library. You can, but it's like writing a whole new Forth. > > -Brad An interesting question. I think the FAQ on using "system libraries" [1] may hold the answer: "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable." With Forth, you never distribute the compiler, just your source code. So I would say that putting Forth source code under the GPL is permissible, even if your code is used on proprietary Forth compilers. Cheers, Arnold [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-01 15:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jdpqu4$4dh$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8545 |
Arnold Doray wrote: > With Forth, you never distribute the compiler, just your source code. Well, you can make images with Forth, and peope do distribute these images - they contain both the compiler and the application, as a single executable (or loader/engine+image, two files). From the GPL FAQ, such a distribution seems to be legal - you *also* have to distribute the source (on request). -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-01 08:50 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <fr6dnbYhwNpxN53SnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8557 |
On 1/1/12 4:34 AM, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Arnold Doray wrote: >> With Forth, you never distribute the compiler, just your source code. > > Well, you can make images with Forth, and peope do distribute these > images - they contain both the compiler and the application, as a single > executable (or loader/engine+image, two files). > > From the GPL FAQ, such a distribution seems to be legal - you *also* > have to distribute the source (on request). > A distributed image that contains the compiler, etc., doesn't necessarily include any user *access* to the compiler. There are many ways of preventing access or use. Physical existence without access doesn't really count, does it? Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-01 13:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <343ef2f5-476c-4af8-9e50-1eccc82d5a5f@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8567 |
On Jan 1, 1:50 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > A distributed image that contains the compiler, etc., doesn't > necessarily include any user *access* to the compiler. There are many > ways of preventing access or use. Physical existence without access > doesn't really count, does it? While this is an issue for permission from the author of the compiler regarding the distribution of the binary image with the embedded compiler ... ... more critical as far as the GPL requirements for someone adapting source code released under the GPL ~ is what source must be made available. The "embedded but not accessed" parts of the embedded compiler would clearly "not count" under GPLv3. Even more importantly, under GPLv3, if the parts of the commercial Forth compiler that _are_ used qualify as System Libraries, the required available source is not required to include the source to those libraries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-02 10:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jds1td$5pn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8557 |
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 15:34:42 +0100, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Arnold Doray wrote: >> With Forth, you never distribute the compiler, just your source code. > > Well, you can make images with Forth, and peope do distribute these > images - they contain both the compiler and the application, as a single > executable (or loader/engine+image, two files). > > From the GPL FAQ, such a distribution seems to be legal - you *also* > have to distribute the source (on request). Distributing the forth application source code under the GPL without the Forth compiler is definitely OK, as I understand the FAQ. You don't need to GPL the compiler to use the software, since they "system library exception" clause of the GPL would apply. However, distributing the forth compiler + app as a binary is *not* OK. The FAQ states: "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, *unless that component itself accompanies the executable.*" Note the last clause. It's very broad. Certainly encompasses an app +compiler image-type distribution. So it seems to me that the "system library exception" provision of the GPL does not allow the system libraries to be actually bundled with the GPL'd software. To do that, the compiler software needs to be GPL'd. It might be OK to distribute the compiler binary separately under a closed-source license, but the FAQ doesn't say clearly if this is OK. Cheers, Arnold
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-02 14:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <70ccf80f-9ae4-4aba-811a-ac1b29a23f17@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8594 |
On Jan 2, 5:46 am, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> The FAQ states:
> "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
> form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
> operating system on which the executable runs, *unless that component
> itself accompanies the executable.*"
> Note the last clause. It's very broad. Certainly encompasses an app
> +compiler image-type distribution.
However, that's the FAQ, not the license. The FAQ also says:
[QUOTE:]
Can I release a program under the GPL which I developed using non-free
tools? (#NonFreeTools)
Which programs you used to edit the source code, or to compile it,
or study it, or record it, usually makes no difference for issues
concerning the licensing of that source code.
However, if you link non-free libraries with the source code, that
would be an issue you need to deal with. It does not preclude
releasing the source code under the GPL, but if the libraries don't
fit under the “system library” exception, you should affix an explicit
notice giving permission to link your program with them. The FAQ entry
about using GPL-incompatible libraries provides more information about
how to do that.
[;QUOTE]
And that:
[QUOTE:]
Does prelinking a GPLed binary to various libraries on the system, to
optimize its performance, count as modification? (#Prelinking)
No. Prelinking is part of a compilation process; it doesn't
introduce any license requirements above and beyond what other aspects
of compilation would. If you're allowed to link the program to the
libraries at all, then it's fine to prelink with them as well. If you
distribute prelinked object code, you need to follow the terms of
section 6.
[;QUOTE]
The *actual license terms* specify that the System Library code has to
be *separable*. In the scenario I am primarily concerned with,
portable code with a range of portability harnesses for specific
systems, the System Library code that is accessed by the portability
harness is clearly separable from the portable code, as empirically
demonstrated by the successful compilation of the code on a GPL'd
implementation.
Just as the GPL FAQ advises regarding templates, the portability
harness for a commercial implementation ~ which is by its nature *not*
likely to be separable ~ should be released under a more permissive
license.
Nor is this jumping through some loophole likely to be closed ~ the
*purpose* of the system library exception is to *permit* free software
to be used in a broader range of contexts without allowing it to be
"trapped" into dependency on commercially licensed software. So the
GPL'd portable code with a more permissively licensed portability
harness for commercial compilers is respecting both the letter and the
spirit of the GPL.
The System Library exception applies to:
(1) accessing necessary Components of the program's environment ~
under GPLv3, even if part of the access is provided by the compiler or
other support tool rather than a standard library distributed with an
operating system ~ and,
(2) standard language features that are available on at least one
GPL'd implementation of that language.
For the scenario where I might be an author, that pretty much covers
it, so I don't fret much about the other cases. However, *for* other
cases, where there may be uncertainty whether the source for a
commercial Forth compiler is included in the terms of "Corresponding
Source" when a GPL source is compiled on a commercial Forth compiler
and an image of that compilation is distributed, the original GPL
author is, of course, free to simply add an exception that removes the
uncertainty. By adaptation from the FAQ:
------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) [years] [name of copyright holder]
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses>.
Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7
If you modify this Program, or any covered work, by compiling it
with any Forth implementation, containing parts covered by the terms
of that implementation's license, the licensors of this Program grant
you additional permission to convey the resulting work.
--------------------
Add that provision to your copyright and, *voila*, *your* code is free
of any concern with whether a SAVESYSTEM image can be distributed ~
whether or not the System Library exception applies, its all good.
That would be handy, eg, for a single file script that compiles to
distinct compilations by compiler or word behavior testing, where some
branch may only be taken by commercial implementations and so someone
might argue that the resulting work is accessing a language features
that is (1) not to access a major System Component and (2) is not
available on a GPL'd language implementation. It would also be handy
for code that is processor-specific where there is no GPL'd
implementation of Forth for that processor or code that is os-specific
where there is no GPL'd implementation of Forth for that os.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 12:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jdusu7$uha$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8609 |
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:17:39 -0800, BruceMcF wrote: > On Jan 2, 5:46 am, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: >> The FAQ states: > >> "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not >> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or >> binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of >> the operating system on which the executable runs, *unless that >> component itself accompanies the executable.*" > >> Note the last clause. It's very broad. Certainly encompasses an app >> +compiler image-type distribution. > > However, that's the FAQ, not the license. The FAQ also says: > No, the part I quote is where the FAQ quotes the GPL v2, section 3. It's there in the v2 license. Cheers, Arnold
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 05:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aab2e4fb-f22e-4ebb-bdef-a84bceee6b41@k28g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8628 |
On Jan 3, 7:39 am, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: > On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:17:39 -0800, BruceMcF wrote: > > On Jan 2, 5:46 am, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: > >> The FAQ states: > > >> "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not > >> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or > >> binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of > >> the operating system on which the executable runs, *unless that > >> component itself accompanies the executable.*" > > >> Note the last clause. It's very broad. Certainly encompasses an app > >> +compiler image-type distribution. > > > However, that's the FAQ, not the license. The FAQ also says: > No, the part I quote is where the FAQ quotes the GPL v2, section 3. > It's there in the v2 license. Aha, so that's why I couldn't find it verbatim in the FAQ, I was not looking in the old version FAQ's. GPLv3 (2007) was when the System Libraries definition was pulled out and generalized. It appears that is in order to cater to settings other than Forth, but the effect was to extend the definition to the benefit of making GPL'd forth source usable across a range of Forth implementations, including commercial implementations. If desirable GPLv2 source was "or later", I'd apply the "or later" and use GPLv3. Given the goals of the GPL, static linking versus dynamic linking was never the critical issue: the critical issue is using *dependency on* non-free software to "trap" software that is intended to be free. License language that made static versus dynamic linking a critical issue was always therefore a flaw in composing license terms in alignment with those goals, and its a flaw that GPLv3 seems to have made substantial progress in correcting. For the scenario I describe ~ a GPL'd portable application and a set of portability harnesses for a variety of different applications, with appropriately permissive licensing for each portability harness ~ so long as the commercial implementation functionality *qualifies* as system libraries, the fact that the compiler may happen to be embedded within the binary image as a means of statically linking to those libraries does not commit the release to include any of the source for the System Libraries provided by the commercial implementation. That "so long as" qualifier is not empty lip service, though ~ it has to actually qualify as a System Library to qualify for that exception.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 11:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lx811m.3yb@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8594 |
In article <jds1td$5pn$1@dont-email.me>, Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 15:34:42 +0100, Bernd Paysan wrote: > >> Arnold Doray wrote: >>> With Forth, you never distribute the compiler, just your source code. >> >> Well, you can make images with Forth, and peope do distribute these >> images - they contain both the compiler and the application, as a single >> executable (or loader/engine+image, two files). >> >> From the GPL FAQ, such a distribution seems to be legal - you *also* >> have to distribute the source (on request). > >Distributing the forth application source code under the GPL without the >Forth compiler is definitely OK, as I understand the FAQ. You don't need >to GPL the compiler to use the software, since they "system library >exception" clause of the GPL would apply. > >However, distributing the forth compiler + app as a binary is *not* OK. >The FAQ states: > >"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not >include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary >form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the >operating system on which the executable runs, *unless that component >itself accompanies the executable.*" > >Note the last clause. It's very broad. Certainly encompasses an app >+compiler image-type distribution. > >So it seems to me that the "system library exception" provision of the >GPL does not allow the system libraries to be actually bundled with the >GPL'd software. To do that, the compiler software needs to be GPL'd. A related issue is the situation where the compiler is GPL (like ciforth/lina) and the user wants to produce proprietary software. That is why I stipulated an extra entitlement for ciforth users on top of the GPL. If a turnkey is based on ciforth, and that turnkey is an application (not an enhanced ciforth) then the requirement to supply source to your application is waived, with the sole condition that it is mentioned that the application is based on ciforth. IMO it goes against the spirit of the GPL to do otherwise, as a Forth application contains the original Forth. However the application is in fact an original work, not a derived work. This creates a situation similar to gcc ( or commercial compilers) where in general the binaries produced with the tool are fully under your control. It helps that c is a thoroughly standard language, more so than Forth. > >It might be OK to distribute the compiler binary separately under a >closed-source license, but the FAQ doesn't say clearly if this is OK. > >Cheers, >Arnold > -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 13:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87boqlf004.fsf@csgate4.strotmann.de> |
| In reply to | #8625 |
Thom Holwerda from OSNews has an interesting angle on free software, Richard Stallmann und GPL: http://mobile.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=25469 Interesting read. -- Carsten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 13:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jduug0$uha$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8625 |
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:53:46 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote: > > A related issue is the situation where the compiler is GPL (like > ciforth/lina) and the user wants to produce proprietary software. That > is why I stipulated an extra entitlement for ciforth users on top of the > GPL. > > If a turnkey is based on ciforth, and that turnkey is an > application (not an enhanced ciforth) then the requirement to supply > source to your application is waived, with the sole condition that it is > mentioned that the application is based on ciforth. > I don't think you can simply put this waiver in and expect it to "work" legally. While *you* may not want to press your rights, the GPL divorces you from the process. For example, if company A used your ciforth this way, it potentially could attract GPL violation lawsuits from users of its closed-source app based on your GPL'd ciforth. You would probably be better off releasing ciforth under the LGPL or some other variant. > IMO it goes against the spirit of the GPL to do otherwise, as a Forth > application contains the original Forth. However the application is in > fact an original work, not a derived work. CM himself has said you never write a program in Forth. You merely add to it. So any Forth program is by definition a derivative work! :) My point is that it is easier to place "traditional" compilers like GCC under the GPL. Much more difficult for Forth, because Forth is the system your app builds on. With GCC, you generate code. > This creates a situation similar to gcc ( or commercial compilers) where > in general the binaries produced with the tool are fully under your > control. It helps that c is a thoroughly standard language, more so than > Forth. > I disagree. The situation is not the same as for C. In C, you are not including any GCC code. In an image-type Forth distribution, you would have to include ciforth binaries. This causes the GPL to kick in for your app's code. Is there a reason you chose the GPL instead of the LGPL for ciforth? Cheers, Arnold
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 06:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7dea1ace-55a6-4492-bc7b-84f93e3d505b@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8629 |
On Jan 3, 8:06 am, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:53:46 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote: >> A related issue is the situation where the compiler is GPL (like >> ciforth/lina) and the user wants to produce proprietary software. >> That is why I stipulated an extra entitlement for ciforth users on >> top of the GPL. >> If a turnkey is based on ciforth, and that turnkey is an >> application (not an enhanced ciforth) then the requirement to supply >> source to your application is waived, with the sole condition that >> it is mentioned that the application is based on ciforth. > I don't think you can simply put this waiver in and expect it to > "work" legally. Then why does the GPL FAQ suggest exactly that approach to addressing exactly that type of issue? > While *you* may not want to press your rights, the GPL divorces > you from the process. > For example, if company A used your ciforth this > way, it potentially could attract GPL violation lawsuits from users of > its closed-source app based on your GPL'd ciforth. The claimed violation of the GPL would be with respect to the license *as contained in ciforth* ~ and if that license was valid and allowed that use, there's no violation. You may be confusing the assignment of copyright to the FSF for FSF distributed code. Or you may be confusing the licensing of derivative works including ciforth but also incorporating other GPL'd code. I don't know whether the exception propagates ~ but in any event, if the hypothetical commercial user stuck to the original ciforth, then the issue would not arise, as the original ciforth license permits the use. > My point is that it is easier to place "traditional" compilers like > GCC under the GPL. > Much more difficult for Forth, because Forth is the system > your app builds on. With GCC, you generate code. Yes, that seems to be part of the reason why it took until GPLv3 that was, it would seem, responding to pressures from GUI toolkits and similar that were not *distributed* as standard libraries with the operating system but which formed part of the normal background to programming under that operating system ... ... until a version of the GPL was composed that seems workable for the "savesystem" type binary creation under a variety of scenarios. >> This creates a situation similar to gcc ( or commercial compilers) >> where in general the binaries produced with the tool are fully under >> your control. It helps that c is a thoroughly standard language, >> more so than Forth. > > I disagree. > > The situation is not the same as for C. In C, you are not including any > GCC code. In an image-type Forth distribution, you would have to include > ciforth binaries. This causes the GPL to kick in for your app's code. > > Is there a reason you chose the GPL instead of the LGPL for ciforth? > > Cheers, > Arnold
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 15:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jdv8a2$rq4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8633 |
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 06:14:12 -0800, BruceMcF wrote: > On Jan 3, 8:06 am, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:53:46 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote: > >>> A related issue is the situation where the compiler is GPL (like >>> ciforth/lina) and the user wants to produce proprietary software. That >>> is why I stipulated an extra entitlement for ciforth users on top of >>> the GPL. > >>> If a turnkey is based on ciforth, and that turnkey is an application >>> (not an enhanced ciforth) then the requirement to supply source to >>> your application is waived, with the sole condition that it is >>> mentioned that the application is based on ciforth. > >> I don't think you can simply put this waiver in and expect it to "work" >> legally. > > Then why does the GPL FAQ suggest exactly that approach to addressing > exactly that type of issue? > Could you provide a link to the part of the FAQ that says this? AFAIK, the only provision in the GPL for such "waivers" are for system libraries, eg, Section 3 of the GPLv2. My point here is that you can't issue ad-hoc "waivers" and tack them onto the GPL , expecting them to provide a solid enough legal framework for Companies to use your GPL app commercially. The scenario I describe should be clear enough. The situation that Albert faces occurs frequently, which is why the LGPL was created in the first place. There has been some backpedaling by the FSF on this (as you can see on their website), but the LGPL still works. IMHO tacking on ad-hoc "waivers" is ill-advised. Better to use the LGPL. >> While *you* may not want to press your rights, the GPL divorces you >> from the process. > >> For example, if company A used your ciforth this way, it potentially >> could attract GPL violation lawsuits from users of its closed-source >> app based on your GPL'd ciforth. > > The claimed violation of the GPL would be with respect to the license > *as contained in ciforth* ~ and if that license was valid and allowed > that use, there's no violation. > > You may be confusing the assignment of copyright to the FSF for FSF > distributed code. Or you may be confusing the licensing of derivative > works including ciforth but also incorporating other GPL'd code. I don't > know whether the exception propagates ~ but in any event, if the > hypothetical commercial user stuck to the original ciforth, then the > issue would not arise, as the original ciforth license permits the use. > I don't think you are allowed to "modify" the terms of the GPL in any way except those explicitly set out by the GPL itself. If you were allowed to so this, you could add in all sorts of rubbish to the GPL! (eg, "it's ok to link to non-FOSS libraries" clause) To be more specific, in Albert's case, the GPL doesn't allow you to make modifications to it which restricts the software user's Basic Freedoms. Albert's "waiver", while making the GPL more permissive for Company A, restricts the freedoms of company A's *users*, so it's a no-no. Cheers, Arnold
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 09:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b7756dc0-f618-4b77-8938-e48447798979@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8634 |
AFIU, you've just proven the non-existence of the GCC compiler runtime library exception. They quite definitely do *not* qualify under the system library exception, because the relationship is reversed. Set aside the issue of whether his provision creates an incompatible license, which would prevent GPLv3 source without an identical disclaimer from being combined ~ that is a license compatibility issue, not a license validity issue. Worst case, the license is invalid. Unless he incorporated incompatibly licensed GPL code of someone else IN his application, the entire invalid license is the release license. I guess someone can always sue on frivolous grounds, but good luck winning on the basis of violating a set of license provisions explicitly waived within the terms of the license itself. The "entangling" occurs with efforts to incorporate already GPL- licensed code or efforts to include within a larger GPL'd release. However, if this is a _de novo_ original work, it is not as if "first" the GPL is applied, and "after" it is amended with the waiver, so if the waiver is incompatible the "amendment" is rejected. The work starts out copyrighted with allrights reserved, and then the publication occurs with the whole license terms attached, whether they form a valid license or not. If valid, the waiver will succeed, and there are no grounds to sue. If invalid, which must be your premise, ... who is going to successfully sue based on a self-contradictory license?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 09:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de1f44ac-b27c-463a-b1ad-aa0652c9f917@r5g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8634 |
On Jan 3, 10:53 am, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: ... > AFAIK, the only provision in the GPL for such "waivers" are for system > libraries, eg, Section 3 of the GPLv2. I'm not following why you are referring to an outdated version. Does your search engine crash on GPLv3 as a search term? Are you rehashing decade old debates rendered moot by the new version? > IMHO tacking on ad-hoc "waivers" is ill-advised. Better to use the LGPL. Whether or not it is ill-advised is not the most extreme claim you have made, so set it aside at present. How does the "original" GPL take precedence over the waiver even supposing the waiver is not properly anchored in Section 7? The GPL incorporating the waiver is applied as a unit here to a _de novo_ work, with no standing license obligations. If its invalid as stated, add a "other provisions notwithstanding", and clearly the waiver would take precedence. The result might be incompatible with standing GPL licenses, but individuals contributing their original work to ciforth willing to release under his license could do so. > To be more specific, in Albert's case, the GPL doesn't allow you to make > modifications to it which restricts the software user's Basic Freedoms. > Albert's "waiver", while making the GPL more permissive for Company A, > restricts the freedoms of company A's *users*, so it's a no-no. They have freedom to use ciforth. The work is a turnkey application, not a Forth compiler, or the waiver does not apply. This is like saying open-source authors of my word processor can require I release my research I write up on it under an open source, license.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 15:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <618a4fff-be57-42ea-a0b1-1d2cc6ffda77@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8634 |
On Jan 3, 10:53 am, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> Could you provide a link to the part of the FAQ that says this?
> AFAIK, the only provision in the GPL for such "waivers" are for system libraries, eg, Section 3 of the GPLv2.
Instead of the GPLv3 FAQ, how about I quote Section 7 of GPLv3
verbatim, since despite the fact that its in the formal language of a
license, it quite clearly both allows for the permission that Albert
grants and to specify the options of those who extend ciforth under
the terms of the license with respect to continuing that permission
for the new release or removing it.
This section would appear to be written to eliminate claims such as
the ones that you have been making about the GPL license terms having
some kind of magic precedence over the balance of the original license
of a work as originally released:
7. Additional Terms.
“Additional permissions” are terms that supplement the terms of this
License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.
Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall
be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent
that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions
apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately
under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by
this License without regard to the additional permissions.
When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of
it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own
removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place
additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work,
for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders
of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
Notices displayed by works containing it; or
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material,
or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors
or authors of the material; or
e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
those licensors and authors.
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further
restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains
a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
not survive such relicensing or conveying.
If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
where to find the applicable terms.
Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the
form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the
above requirements apply either way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web