Re: License questions (Users-prolog Digest, Vol 85, Issue 4)
Daniel Diaz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.prolog.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello everybody, the next stable version (1.4.0) will be released under a dual license: GPL or LGPL. This should simplify a lot the commercial use of applications written in GNU Prolog. Daniel PS: the current snapshot in the unstable directory is under LGPL but the final version will be under GPL or LGPL. I'm integrating/polishing a port to Win 64 bits (thanks to Jasper Taylor) and then I will release it. Le 20/01/2011 10:52, aLurchi a écrit : > > Hello everybody, > > > From what I understood Daniel and Duncan are saying: The resulting native > executables are not limited by the GPL... > > "copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people > make from their data using your program. If the user uses your program to > enter or convert his own data, the copyright on the output belongs to him, > not you. More generally, when a program translates its input into some other > form, the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was > generated from. > > So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if substantial > parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in your program. For > instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be covered by the > GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this specific case." (source: > www.gnu.org) > > So I guess the question is pretty much: Do stand-alone executables created > with GNU-Prolog contain GPL-covered parts? > If not the resulting executables should not be coverd by the GPL and thus be > open for commercial/unfree use. > > Any thoughts on that? > > Nils > > > > > > > Daniel Diaz-3 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hello everybody; >> >> Daniel (Savard) and Duncan are right: the resulting native executable >> is limited by the GPL license. >> >> To simplify user's life, the next stable version of gprolog should be >> fully released under the LGPL license ( >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html ). >> >> You can find the current (unstable) snapshot of 1.4.0 at: >> >> http://gprolog.univ-paris1.fr/unstable/gprolog-20100713.tgz >> >> I plan to release the stable version 1.4.0 in September or October. >> >> Daniel >> >> Alexander Wolfe aécrit : >> >> Thanks for the help guys. It makes more sense to me now. >> >> -Alex >> >> On Jul 13, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:00:43 -0400 >> [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> Send Users-prolog mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Users-prolog digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. License questions (Alexander Wolfe) >> 2. Re: License questions (Daniel Savard) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:42:50 -0700 >> From: Alexander Wolfe<[email protected]> >> Subject: License questions >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> I have a couple of questions about the use of gprolog compiled programs. I >> understand that gprolog is GPL software and that any modified version of >> its >> codebase would be required to be released under a GPL compatible license. >> What about programs compiled with gprolog? I know that gcc does not >> restrict >> compiled programs to the GPL. What is the case here? >> >> Thank you. >> >> -Alex >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/users-prolog/attachments/20100712/29c38652/attachment.html >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:21:54 -0400 >> From: Daniel Savard<[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: License questions >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> 2010/7/12 Alexander Wolfe<[email protected]> : >> >> >> I have a couple of questions about the use of gprolog compiled >> programs. I >> understand that gprolog is GPL software and that any modified version of >> its >> codebase would be required to be released under a GPL compatible license. >> What about programs compiled with gprolog? I know that gcc does not >> restrict >> compiled programs to the GPL. What is the case here? >> >> >> >> >> The answer is obvious, same license same terms. A license cannot >> pretend to acquire rights on the original work of others. The idea of >> a license is to protect something and in this case, the GNU-Prolog >> compiler. >> >> I know there is some copyrights and intellectual property lawyers >> which are dessiminating the idea the GPL license extend to everything >> developped using OSS. But they are wrong. There is plenty of examples >> they are. >> >> BTW, I am not a lawyer, so, if this is a very sensitive question for >> you, ask one or more than one, but pick a good one. >> >> >> >> Nor am I, but at the end of the COPYING file in the source install of >> Gprolog >> you will find the following: >> " >> This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program >> into >> proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may >> consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with >> the >> library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General >> Public License instead of this License. >> " >> This is the LGPL loophole, allowing you to LINK your own code to >> the Gprolog Libraries without releasing your code under the GPL. >> >> So your development environment is under the main GPL and you >> could not sell it without the full GPL viral recursion, but >> target/end use products are not so encumbered, given that >> they are substantially different in function and purpose than >> Gprolog itself. >> >> Dhu >> >> >> >> Regards, >> -- >> ----------------- >> Daniel Savard >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users-prolog mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog >> >> >> End of Users-prolog Digest, Vol 85, Issue 4 >> ******************************************* >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users-prolog mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users-prolog mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog >> >> -- Ce message a ete verifie par MailScanner pour des virus ou des polluriels et rien de suspect n'a ete trouve.