Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8427 > unrolled thread

GPL and commercial Forths

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  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 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#8731

On Jan 8, 12:07 pm, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> Only that they would be longer than simple waivers.

In this case, a definition of turnkey might have to be added, and a
"Notwithstanding" might be needed somewhere. It would still qualify as
a simple waiver.

> And not easy to understand.

Also easy to understand.

> Also not really something
> most "hobbyist" programmers can afford.

Not in the case at hand, of course ~ at least if someone is not misled
into thinking its as complicated as you are claiming ~ but if there is
a case where it is, then I'd suggest that a hobbyist programmer
willing to grant a waiver in the interest of commercial users of the
code could express that interest in their copyright statement and
allow the commercial user to cover the costs if the issue arises.

Sorry for making that too verbose but I'm willing to accept a writing
fee to invest time into writing it more concisely.

As far as you not being able to find the waiver described by the
ciforth author as:
QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE
... after devoting pages and pages of text to explaining the flaws in
that waiver, I find that quite amusing. Thanks for sharing that and
brightening a dull grey (but surprisingly warm for January) Ohio
Sunday winter afternoon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8752

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:10:17 -0800, BruceMcF wrote:

> On Jan 8, 12:07 pm, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Only that they would be longer than simple waivers.
> 
> In this case, a definition of turnkey might have to be added, and a
> "Notwithstanding" might be needed somewhere. It would still qualify as a
> simple waiver.
> 
>> And not easy to understand.
> 
> Also easy to understand.
> 
>> Also not really something most "hobbyist" programmers can afford.
> 
> Not in the case at hand, of course ~ at least if someone is not misled
> into thinking its as complicated as you are claiming ~ but if there is a
> case where it is, then I'd suggest that a hobbyist programmer willing to
> grant a waiver in the interest of commercial users of the code could
> express that interest in their copyright statement and allow the
> commercial user to cover the costs if the issue arises.

YYou should consider a career in the legal profession. 

> 
> Sorry for making that too verbose but I'm willing to accept a writing
> fee to invest time into writing it more concisely.
> 

Should be a prerequisite for posting to clf. ;)


> As far as you not being able to find the waiver described by the ciforth
> author as:
> QUOTE 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.
> UNQUOTE ... after devoting pages and pages of text to explaining the
> flaws in that waiver, I find that quite amusing. Thanks for sharing that
> and brightening a dull grey (but surprisingly warm for January) Ohio
> Sunday winter afternoon.

Glad to have brightened your day. 

The problem in Forth is that the line separating an "appliction" from an 
"enhancement" is very thin. For example, if my GPL forth did not have 
2DUP, (or more realistically, NONAME), Then consider an "app" which you 
create: 

: 2dup over over ; 
: my-app ( a b -- ab^2 ) 2dup * * * * ; 

Then you bundle this app with your image GPL'd Forth into a distribution. 
The problem now is that I can argue that 2DUP is an enhancement to the 
Forth, and therefore you have to reveal the code. In a more significant 
example, you could have included a significant optimization, which I 
could deem to be an "enhancement" rather than your "app", entirely at my 
discretion. 

Cheers,
Arnold

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8782

On Jan 9, 4:01 am, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> Then you bundle this app with your image GPL'd Forth into a distribution.
> The problem now is that I can argue that 2DUP is an enhancement to the
> Forth, and therefore you have to reveal the code. In a more significant
> example, you could have included a significant optimization, which I
> could deem to be an "enhancement" rather than your "app", entirely at my
> discretion.
Is it a problem that GPL is written for orange growers but we grow
apples?

I think that the vendor's Forth qualifies as a system library or
kernel or something. If you SAVE-SYSTEM with your pet words added, the
GPL makes you reveal your pet words to whoever gets the improved
Forth. Okay, that's the intent of GPL. If the original Forth wasn't
GPL but their license terms (probably not a commercial Forth) don't
stop you from releasing your improved Forth under GPL, again no
problem. The source code of the original Forth isn't forced out into
the open.

-Brad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8784

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:26:26 -0800, Brad wrote:

> On Jan 9, 4:01 am, Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Then you bundle this app with your image GPL'd Forth into a
>> distribution.
>> The problem now is that I can argue that 2DUP is an enhancement to the
>> Forth, and therefore you have to reveal the code. In a more significant
>> example, you could have included a significant optimization, which I
>> could deem to be an "enhancement" rather than your "app", entirely at
>> my discretion.
> Is it a problem that GPL is written for orange growers but we grow
> apples?
> 

The GPL isn't the problem. This issue only arises in Forth when you need 
to add exceptions/waivers to the GPL. 

> I think that the vendor's Forth qualifies as a system library or kernel
> or something. If you SAVE-SYSTEM with your pet words added, the GPL
> makes you reveal your pet words to whoever gets the improved Forth.
> Okay, that's the intent of GPL. 

Yes, that's right. 

The problem only arises when you need to write exceptions to the GPL (or 
even the LGPL, come to think of it) that allow closed-sourced code + GPL 
Forth into a single turnkey "image" app. The problem is that in Forth, 
the line between "app" and "compiler" is blurred, making it hard -- if 
not impossible -- to write such waivers that are unambiguous. 

> If the original Forth wasn't GPL but
> their license terms (probably not a commercial Forth) don't stop you
> from releasing your improved Forth under GPL, again no problem. The
> source code of the original Forth isn't forced out into the open.
> 
> -Brad

You can surely release your Forth code under the GPL, but this may force 
your users to run it only on Forths with GPL-compatible licenses. This is 
why someone upthread needed to write a waiver to allow his GPL'd code to 
be run on VFX. 

Cheers,
Arnold

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8790

In article <jeiu0q$von$2@dont-email.me>,
Arnold Doray  <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>The problem only arises when you need to write exceptions to the GPL (or
>even the LGPL, come to think of it) that allow closed-sourced code + GPL
>Forth into a single turnkey "image" app. The problem is that in Forth,
>the line between "app" and "compiler" is blurred, making it hard -- if
>not impossible -- to write such waivers that are unambiguous.

No it isn't. Not for lina/wina.
A Forth is an interactive system. If it is not interactive it
can't be a Forth.

Now suppose I release a sbpcp as a closed source. (It is gpl-ed,
and I can't rerelease it, for parts of it are written by Anton Ertl,
bu that is neither here nor there.)

The compilation goes like
lina -c sbpcp.fs

and the usage goes like

sbpcp 1,000,000,000,000
with the answer
37607912018 primes under 1000000000000

Now tell me how even a screwd lawyer would construe this as
an enhanced Forth?

Or if I write a clone of xfig (a jigsaw puzzle on screen) in lina?
Come on!
Please note that it would be completely unreasonable. A lot of
number theoretical effort went into sbpcp. The Forth is only a
tool to turn it into something runnable. Idem for xfig.
And yes, sbpcp.fs could be portable over gForth and lina, which
would add to the argument that it is not an enhancement of lina.

>
>> If the original Forth wasn't GPL but
>> their license terms (probably not a commercial Forth) don't stop you
>> from releasing your improved Forth under GPL, again no problem. The
>> source code of the original Forth isn't forced out into the open.
>>
>> -Brad
>
>You can surely release your Forth code under the GPL, but this may force
>your users to run it only on Forths with GPL-compatible licenses. This is
>why someone upthread needed to write a waiver to allow his GPL'd code to
>be run on VFX.

A waiver can only apply to obligations. A user running, not distributing,
a GPL program has no obligations resulting from the GPL.
So the waiver is no needed to "run on VFX".

>
>Cheers,
>Arnold

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
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]

#8800

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:10:39 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote:

> In article <jeiu0q$von$2@dont-email.me>,
> Arnold Doray  <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>The problem only arises when you need to write exceptions to the GPL (or
>>even the LGPL, come to think of it) that allow closed-sourced code + GPL
>>Forth into a single turnkey "image" app. The problem is that in Forth,
>>the line between "app" and "compiler" is blurred, making it hard -- if
>>not impossible -- to write such waivers that are unambiguous.
> 
> No it isn't. Not for lina/wina.
> A Forth is an interactive system. If it is not interactive it can't be a
> Forth.
> 

That is irrelevant. What's relevant is how your code is released and how 
it's used. 

>
> Now suppose I release a sbpcp as a closed source. (It is gpl-ed,
> and I can't rerelease it, for parts of it are written by Anton Ertl,
> bu that is neither here nor there.)
> 
> The compilation goes like lina -c sbpcp.fs
> 
> and the usage goes like
> 
> sbpcp 1,000,000,000,000 with the answer 37607912018 primes under
> 1000000000000
> 
> Now tell me how even a screwd lawyer would construe this as an enhanced
> Forth?
> 
> Or if I write a clone of xfig (a jigsaw puzzle on screen) in lina?
> Come on!
> Please note that it would be completely unreasonable. A lot of number
> theoretical effort went into sbpcp. The Forth is only a tool to turn it
> into something runnable. Idem for xfig.
> And yes, sbpcp.fs could be portable over gForth and lina, which would
> add to the argument that it is not an enhancement of lina.
> 
> 

I really don't understand where you're coming from. The problem is not 
the "lawyer" it's with the copyright holder. 

My point is quite simple: Where to draw the line between "app" and 
"enhancement" that is unambiguous. For most languages, the distinction 
usually is clear. 

TO repeat an example, suppose you have "almost" ANS Forth and a 
commercial company wants to use it in their product. Your simple waiver 
says that "enhancements" are GPLd, but anyone can distribute their own 
image+app and keep the app closed.

The company writes (in Forth), additional words to make it ANS compliant, 
and they build their app on that.  

How to decide if something is an "enhancement" or "app"? They have to 
rely on *your* judgment, going back to you to decide each word? 

Do you see the problem??


>>> If the original Forth wasn't GPL but their license terms (probably not
>>> a commercial Forth) don't stop you from releasing your improved Forth
>>> under GPL, again no problem. The source code of the original Forth
>>> isn't forced out into the open.
>>>
>>> -Brad
>>
>>You can surely release your Forth code under the GPL, but this may force
>>your users to run it only on Forths with GPL-compatible licenses. This
>>is why someone upthread needed to write a waiver to allow his GPL'd code
>>to be run on VFX.
> 
> A waiver can only apply to obligations. A user running, not
> distributing,
> a GPL program has no obligations resulting from the GPL.
> So the waiver is no needed to "run on VFX".
> 
> 

My bad: I meant distributing your GPL app with VFX image.  

Cheers,
Arnold

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8791

Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
> You can surely release your Forth code under the GPL, but this may force 
> your users to run it only on Forths with GPL-compatible licenses.

I don't believe it.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8806

Andrew Haley wrote:

> Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> 
>> You can surely release your Forth code under the GPL, but this may
>> force your users to run it only on Forths with GPL-compatible
>> licenses.
> 
> I don't believe it.

The right to run the software is clearly (and very obviously) part of 
the four freedoms.  The user can chose whatever Forth system to run the 
Forth program on.

It's more cumbersome for a distributor of a savesystem image.  The 
system library exception seems to think that the compiler itself isn't a 
system library.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8813

On Jan 11, 10:17 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:

> >> You can surely release your Forth code under the GPL, but this may
> >> force your users to run it only on Forths with GPL-compatible
> >> licenses.

> > I don't believe it.

> The right to run the software is clearly (and very obviously) part of
> the four freedoms.  The user can chose whatever Forth system to run
> the Forth program on.

> It's more cumbersome for a distributor of a savesystem image.  The
> system library exception seems to think that the compiler itself
> isn't a system library.

Yes. In GPLv2 because of the very narrow definition of System
Libraries, unless the compiler itself is providing the operating
system, the compiler is just omitted. Evolution of operating systems
and support libraries for User Interfaces rendered that definition
obsolete, and so we have the GPLv3 definition of System Library:

GPLv3: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

QUOTE
The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
“Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.
UNQUOTE

Under ANSI Systems: Programming Languages: Forth, a Forth compiler is
defined in terms of behavior: the compiler comprises the set of those
behaviors specified as compilation semantics, as per Section 3.4 and
from Section 2:

QUOTE

compile:
    To transform source code into dictionary definitions.
compilation semantics:
    The behavior of a Forth definition when its name is encountered by
the text interpreter in compilation state.

UNQUOTE

However, in a binary distribution, GPLv3 expresses the System Library
exception as:

QUOTE
A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.
UNQUOTE

Clearly in the cross-compiler case ~ which is likely the more
important commercial setting ~ everything is fine under GPLv3 provided
the excluded source is limited to system interface functions and to
implementation of standardized Forth behavior.

However, for the SAVESYSTEM scenario, just as clearly the "compiler
itself" is excluded. The Compiler is a "Major Component", and the
System Library specifies: "but which is not part of that Major
Component".

So an author that wants to allow it must make allowance for it. As the
GPLv3 FAQ states:

"If you want your program to link against a library not covered by the
system library exception, you need to provide permission to do that."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

Clearly, the entire process of compiling an image that embeds the
original Forth compiler is static pre-linking to a library (the Forth
system itself) which is not covered by the system library exception.

Where the original GPL license notice originally appears (note that
the exception does not need to appear in the GPLv3 license, but only
in the application of the GPL to the covered software:

QUOTE:

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 linking or
combining it with [name of library] (or a modified version of that
library), containing parts covered by the terms of [name of library's
license], the licensors of this Program grant you additional
permission to convey the resulting work. {Corresponding Source for a
non-source form of such a combination shall include the source code
for the parts of [name of library] used as well as that of the covered
work.}

UNQUOTE

So, for the case where the GPL source is the program code and it is
desired to make it as widely portable as possible, and given that
compilation semantics is a standard term for the Forth programming
language:

Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7

If you modify this Program, or any covered work, by linking or
combining it with an implementation of the Forth programming language,
containing parts covered by the terms of that licensor of that Forth
programming language, the licensors of this Program grant you
additional permission to convey the resulting work.

... and that's that.

The waiver the opposite way ~ allowing SAVESYSTEM use of a GPL's
compiler with proprietary code, without giving carte blanche to
distribute the compiler or extensions of the compiler itself as
commercial software, that would seem to be something like:

Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7

If you use this Program, an implementation of the Forth programming
language, to (1) compile a Program in the Forth Programming Language
into a binary object that contains this implementation, and also
contains parts covered by the terms of the license of that Forth
Program, and (2) the user of the binary object cannot perform the
Forth Programming Language compilation semantics of this
implementation as defined by ANSI X3.215-1994, the licensors of this
Program grant you additional permission to convey the resulting work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8808

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:57:14 -0600, Andrew Haley wrote:

> Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> 
>> You can surely release your Forth code under the GPL, but this may
>> force your users to run it only on Forths with GPL-compatible licenses.
> 
> I don't believe it.
> 
> Andrew.

The "users" are companies that need to run your GPL app with their Forth 
on their client's machines. Eg, distributing an Forth image+app as a 
single turn key app. Which has been the focus of this thread. -AD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8810

Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:57:14 -0600, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>> Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> You can surely release your Forth code under the GPL, but this may
>>> force your users to run it only on Forths with GPL-compatible licenses.
>> 
>> I don't believe it.
> 
> The "users" are companies that need to run your GPL app with their
> Forth on their client's machines. Eg, distributing an Forth
> image+app as a single turn key app.

That's not what you said.  If you ship GPL code, people can run it on
any Forth they want.  They can't link it to a proprietary binary and
ship the combination as proprietary code.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8816

Arnold Doray wrote:
> The "users" are companies that need to run your GPL app with their
> Forth on their client's machines. Eg, distributing an Forth image+app
> as a single turn key app. Which has been the focus of this thread. -AD

This is a weird way of thinking.  The company is not a user, they are a 
distributor.  The client is the user.  The client can run the GPL app on 
any Forth they want.  They can build a turn-key app for their 
convenience.  They can not distribute it (not through the system library 
exception).  If a company, say MPE, wants to distribute a GPL app, say 
MINOS, together with their Forth system, they can do that, as "mere 
aggregate".  Therefore, MINOS is in the "examples" subsection of VFX 
Forth, not in the "lib" subsection - it's an example Forth program that 
can run on VFX, but it's an independent work.  MINOS actually is under 
LGPL, so more relaxed, also distributing a turnkey system is possible 
(as long as it is possible for the end-user to recreate that turnkey 
system and maybe fix a bug or two in MINOS).

A company creating a turnkey app is violating the system library 
exception, because the GPL thinks the compiler is not a system library 
(which, in the Forth case, I would rather say it is - a Forth system is 
a run-time environment for programs, and it contains a compiler, some 
sort of operating system - or bindings to an existing operating system, 
an interpreter, and a bunch of other words, which would be in something 
like libc in a traditional Unix system).

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8839

On Jan 11, 10:55 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> A company creating a turnkey app is violating the system library
> exception, because the GPL thinks the compiler is not a system library
> (which, in the Forth case, I would rather say it is - a Forth system is
> a run-time environment for programs, and it contains a compiler, some
> sort of operating system - or bindings to an existing operating system,
> an interpreter, and a bunch of other words, which would be in something
> like libc in a traditional Unix system).

Sure, scripting is a nice feature to have in a turnkey app, and that
uses the compiler. What are the practical implications of this?

-Brad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8840

On Jan 13, 10:56 am, Brad <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, scripting is a nice feature to have in a turnkey app, and that
> uses the compiler. What are the practical implications of this?

And a reason why you'd want a SAVESYSTEM turnkey rather than a cross-
compiler. Under the phrasing of GPLv3, its the embedding of the
compiler itself that requires the waiver, so above I'd suggested:

Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7

If you use this Program, an implementation of the Forth programming
language, (1) to compile a Program in the Forth Programming Language
into a binary object that contains this implementation, and also
contains parts covered by the terms of the license of that Forth
Program, and (2) the user of the binary object cannot perform the
Forth Programming Language compilation semantics of this
implementation as defined by ANSI X3.215-1994, the licensor(s) of this
Program grant(s) you additional permission to convey the resulting
work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8844

BruceMcF wrote:

> On Jan 13, 10:56 am, Brad <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sure, scripting is a nice feature to have in a turnkey app, and that
>> uses the compiler. What are the practical implications of this?
> 
> And a reason why you'd want a SAVESYSTEM turnkey rather than a cross-
> compiler. Under the phrasing of GPLv3, its the embedding of the
> compiler itself that requires the waiver, so above I'd suggested:

Actually, all my larger programs (for which making a turnkey is a good 
idea) use the compiler in a way that has to be exposed to the end user.  
Maybe not exposed in the sense of "the end user will write text files 
with Forth code", but it would have been possible.

Example: the GUI for the digital audio amplifier at Zetex has a 
scripting capability, and the scripts are simply fed into the Forth 
interpreter (with compiler enabled).  Once, there was the question "if 
you desing a filter, can you export the coefficients for all typical 
sample rates, i.e. 32k/44.1k/48k/88.1k/96k/192k?  And the answer was a 
slightly more complicated than usual script to do that.

The solution in my case: don't ship a turnkey, put the entire program 
under GPL.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8855

On Jan 13, 1:20 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Actually, all my larger programs (for which making a turnkey is a good
> idea) use the compiler in a way that has to be exposed to the end
> user. Maybe not exposed in the sense of "the end user will write text
> files with Forth code", but it would have been possible.

> Example: the GUI for the digital audio amplifier at Zetex has a
> scripting capability, and the scripts are simply fed into the Forth
> interpreter (with compiler enabled).  Once, there was the question "if
> you desing a filter, can you export the coefficients for all typical
> sample rates, i.e. 32k/44.1k/48k/88.1k/96k/192k?  And the answer was a
> slightly more complicated than usual script to do that.

> The solution in my case: don't ship a turnkey, put the entire program
> under GPL.

Note that under this branch of the issue ~ a GPL'd Forth
implementation ~ your solution is not an either-or to shipping a
turnkey, since a GPL'd Forth program used to make a turnkey with a
GPL'd Forth compiler does not have an issue regarding Covered Source ~
the entire source for the turnkey can be made available.

And under the other branch of the issue, the question of whether the
turnkey exposes the compiler is not raised, since that's an issue for
the license of the Forth implementation to specify what is allowed and
what is not allowed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8858

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:42:21 -0800, BruceMcF wrote:


> Under the phrasing of GPLv3, its the embedding of the compiler
> itself that requires the waiver, so above I'd suggested:
> 
> Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7
> 
> If you use this Program, an implementation of the Forth programming
> language, (1) to compile a Program in the Forth Programming Language
> into a binary object that contains this implementation, and also
> contains parts covered by the terms of the license of that Forth
> Program, and (2) the user of the binary object cannot perform the Forth
> Programming Language compilation semantics of this implementation as
> defined by ANSI X3.215-1994, the licensor(s) of this Program grant(s)
> you additional permission to convey the resulting work.

Interesting! 

You've essentially side-stepped the problem of the derived work issues by 
crippling the resulting turnkey binary. 

Your specific crippling strategy (preventing the turnkey binary from 
compiling anything) would of course exclude running some type of scripts 
which use Forth to implement their DSL engine. But you could certainly 
tweak the waiver to allow these. 

The big problem with this waiver is that it would allow companies to 
circumvent copyleft: They could add to your Forth (put in optimizations, 
fix bugs, update it to conform to ANS) and never have to release these 
improvements, as long as the resulting binary satisfies the crippling 
conditions. 

If you think about it, this whole approach (crippling the binary) is of 
questionable value. 

Cripple too much and the waiver is of no use.
Cripple too little and you've thrown out copyleft. 

Cheers,
Arnold







  
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8866

In article <854be2b5-4a01-415e-bcd2-c465957c6703@c6g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
Brad  <hwfwguy@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 11, 10:55=A0am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> A company creating a turnkey app is violating the system library
>> exception, because the GPL thinks the compiler is not a system library
>> (which, in the Forth case, I would rather say it is - a Forth system is
>> a run-time environment for programs, and it contains a compiler, some
>> sort of operating system - or bindings to an existing operating system,
>> an interpreter, and a bunch of other words, which would be in something
>> like libc in a traditional Unix system).
>
>Sure, scripting is a nice feature to have in a turnkey app, and that
>uses the compiler. What are the practical implications of this?

That an application could be used as the original Forth would. So I
added a stipulation (to lina/wina) that if a distributed program is an
application, the fact that all Forth words can be used doesn't make it
a derived work.

A case in point is ciasdis. It is an assembler/disassembler.
In the scripting almost all of Forth comes in handy.
I don't consider it a derived work.

>
>-Brad

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
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]

#8815

On Jan 11, 6:57 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
wrote:
> Arnold Doray <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:

>> You can surely release your Forth code under the GPL, but this may force
>> your users to run it only on Forths with GPL-compatible licenses.

> I don't believe it.

Note the "this may force" does not mean "you may be forced to force
your users", despite Arnold's repeated efforts to try to make it seem
like it does ... it only means "if you place that restriction on your
users".

Which is like Groucho Marx's patient: "Doctor, I have a sharp pain
when I raise my arm above my head." "Ah, yes, I can cure that." "Thank
you Doctor, what do I do?" "Refrain from raising your arm above your
head. That'll be $50."

Obviously, if your original license terms restrict the effective use
of your work, you can fix it by re-issuing it with non-broken license
terms that permit effective use.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8743

In article <jecig6$c0k$2@dont-email.me>,
Arnold Doray  <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 08:23:35 -0800, BruceMcF wrote:
>
>> I do not know whether the ciforth waiver is or not ~ if it is, then it
>> needs to tighten up the definition of turnkey app. But certainly its not
>> *necessarily* subject to that abuse, since commercial Forth licenses
>> have been written that successfully discriminate between embedding the
>> compiler in a turnkey image and actually exposing the compiler for use.
>
>Bruce, please could you keep your posts short and to the point?
>
>Doubtless, with money and lawyers on your side, you can craft a good
>waiver. I didn't say you couldn't. Only that they would be longer than
>simple waivers. And not easy to understand. Also not really something
>most "hobbyist" programmers can afford.
>
>I actually downloaded Albert's ciforth [1]. It's released under the GPLv2
>without modifications. I couldn't find any waivers or exceptions.

That is because ciforth-##.tar.gz doesn't contain binaries.
It is a toolkit to build forth's, and the Forth's you build with
this toolkit are your own. Whether or not those Forth's allow
to build turnkeys depends on your own skill. They are not a derived
work of the toolkit. The issue is pretty moot here, because someone
skilled enough to use the toolkit is very likely to build his own.

The binaries, sources and documentation we are talking about, is
an example of what can be done with this toolkit.
So you should look into lina-4.0.6.tar.gz wna4d0d6.zip and some such.

>
>Cheers,
>Arnold
>
>[1] http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst/ciforth-4.0.6.tar.gz


--
-- 
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]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web