Search results

I'm just pointing out that there are different levels of risk involved: own code < third party BSD/MIT/LGPL code < third party GPL code < FSF's GPL code

Basically, yes. The license itself says nothing about linking. Whatever has "Copyright (C) Free Software Foundation" on it. ---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ---------- The bold is problematic. The FSF can sue you, simply because you have entered a...

And the problem with splitting this in two packages is...? Also, see the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL. I'd posit that if your ZIP contains two directories named "ARTWORK" and "CODE" and each of these contains a separate LICENSE file -- then you are perfectly in compliance. Also, FYI...

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Of course you are right. But this does not stop the FSF from claiming that such linkage is impermissible because... eh... because they say so.

FSF believes that GPL'd code cannot be used to extend non-free software in the form of dynamically-loadable plug-ins and that such action is a violation of the license. At this point, there are two issues: (1) Whether FSF's belief is grounded in reality. (2) Does FSF has right to sue /...

Yes, indeed, "FSF will not let you distribute Orbiter addons (alone) under GPL (unless you add an exception)". However they can be safely ignored (unless you use their code in your add-on). The two situations have a different level of "illegality" so to say. I can do a longer write up on this...

Except that FSF believes that it isn't. But unless your add-on contains code authored by FSF, you can simply ignore them. ---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ---------- Here is a write-up concerning the same controversy in a different context...

No, the real reason the exception is necessary is that FSF keeps proclaiming its fantasy that "every dynamic linking constitutes a derivative work" and there is a group of loud people with zero knowledge of copyright law who will flame you into submission unless you bow to this fantasy. BTW...

Estoppel applies like this: if the licensor agrees that GPL can be used for Orbiter add-ons, then he has no grounds to sue the licensee for using his GPL'd code in Orbiter add-ons. And, if someone puts out his original add-on code under GPL then he obviously agrees with it being used with...

If you want to bring down the entire Orbiter add-on community -- by all means please do. I have actually met these people (including in person) and I know what they are capable of: a massive flame war which will end up with everyone packing up their toys and going home. Been there, done that...

Did I say that? Realize that your scenario has yourself commiting a fraud, and your downstream user is a victim of your fraud. ---------- Post added at 08:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ---------- Again: all that means that your code cannot be integrated into GPL'd code...

It's not that it "rendered GPL inoperative", it's that your code cannot be integrated into GPL'd add-ons. Now: why, exactly, is that a problem?

And you are not supposed to do that. Technically no, but I don't really see him getting sued. He acted in a good will when procuring your code.

You are (again) conflating two issues. You are not allowed to take my GPL'd code and put EULA on it, because you are my licensee. But as a licensor you are allowed to take two copies of your own code, and put GPL on one copy, and EULA on the other copy, and there is no conflict whatsoever...

No, that's nonsense. The moment you slap GPL on top of your code it becomes covered by GPL. Period. The only situation when your code is GPL-incompatible is when your code incorporates someone else's code which is licensed in a manner which is incompatible with GPL, i.e. covered by 4-clause BSD...

Well, not exactly. The fact of the matter is that distribution of Orbiter + GPL-DLL as a functional unit indeed appears to be illegal. While this is not relevant in context of OH, it becomes very relevant in case someone was selling pre-built Orbiter simpits.

1. You cannot violate your own copyright any more than you can steal a car from yourself. 2. Nobody has managed to convincigly demonstrate that a GPL'd Orbiter DLL violates license by merely linking with non-free core. Observe that the license terms say: FSF's argument is that at runtime, an...

Well, he can always specify license terms prohibiting that, but whether this would be actually legal & enforcable is a different matter...

Again, as long as you don't copy-paste code from someone else's program, then IMHO the legal risk is pretty much zero, as the only people with the right to sue (i.e. developers) (a) have no interest in doing so and (b) would likely have their case thrown out of court citing implicit consent...