Big development in the GUI realm

[Gabriel B.]

Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
This is odd. They claim it's a GPL'ed version, but it's a trolltech
license that forces you to release your code under gpl even tought
their's not!

I'm not against a company getting it's share with their product.
that's what motivated them in the first place. but DONT LIE! don't
call it gpl when it's not.

Gpl make it very explicity it deals with the program as a whole, in
the meaning of a executable code. What they're trying to achive here
is that, by adding this paragraph, they will cover the "dll use" under
the gpl.

By that cover-all definition they came up, i can't use Internet
Explorer to see a site hosted with a gpl'ed server! i can't even use a
BSD program to grep a file!

anyway... it will only mater when people with money cares. I already
have 3 choices.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Maciej_Mr=F3z?=]

My understanding is that what you propose is not valid. An EXE
that uses a GPL'd DLL must be distributed according to the
terms of the GPL. Were that not the case, the LGPL would not
have been needed.

I believe this is the case only in simple situation where gpl-ed dll is
_required_ to run exe or exe has some specific support code to work with
gpl-ed dll.

However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.
2. Later someone writes plugin using the api (which is public domain so
is GPL compatible), plugin gets loaded into my software, significantly
affecting its functionality (UI, operations, file formats, whatever).
3. Someone downloads the plugin and loads it into my program

They become effectively larger program, where one part is not GPL (which
is exactly what GPL wants to avoid)
Am I bound by GPL? Certainly not, I did not sign or agree to it in way.
Is the plugin programmer bound by GPL in a way that prohibits writing
GPL plugin to non-GPL program. Not sure, but I don't think so - plugin
is based on API which is public domain
Is end user violating GPL? In the end this is when combining happens. I
don't think so, in my understanding GPL only affects only the
distribution - downloading the plugin means ability to obtain source
code, but does not limit what you do with source as long as you do not
redistribute any derivative works.

I think it does not really matter if plugin programmer and main program
programmer are the same person/organization or not ... it might however
get tricky if GPL plugin is distributed as part of main program.

Unfortunately, GPL faq is extremely vague on such border cases, instead
of simple "yes/no" answers faq is filled with some advocacy talks ...

regards,
Maciej Mróz

 

[Damjan]

However, imagine simple situation:

1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.
2. Later someone writes plugin using the api (which is public domain so
is GPL compatible), plugin gets loaded into my software, significantly
affecting its functionality (UI, operations, file formats, whatever).
3. Someone downloads the plugin and loads it into my program

I don't think it is legal to distribute the plugin in binary form.
OTOH it should be legal to distribute it as source code.

Am I bound by GPL? Certainly not, I did not sign or agree to it in way.

correct

 

[Jeff Shannon]

However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.
2. Later someone writes plugin using the api (which is public domain so
is GPL compatible), plugin gets loaded into my software, significantly
affecting its functionality (UI, operations, file formats, whatever).
3. Someone downloads the plugin and loads it into my program

I believe that in this case, the key is *distribution*.

You are not violating the GPL, because you are not distributing a
program that is derived (according to the GPL's definition of derived)
from GPL code.

The plugin author *is* distributing GPL-derived code, but is doing so
under a GPL license. That's fine too.

The end user is now linking (dynamically) GPL code with your
proprietary code. However, he is *not* distributing the linked
assemblage. This is allowed under the GPL; its terms only apply when
distribution takes place.

If the end user is a repackager, and then turns around and distributes
both sets of code together, then that would (potentially) violate GPL
terms. But as long as they're not distributed together, then it's
okay. This should even extend to distributing a basic (proprietary)
plugin and including a document describing where & how to get the
more-featureful GPL replacement plugin. (Distributing both programs
as separate packages on a single installation medium would be a tricky
edge case. I suspect it *could* be done in a GPL-acceptable way, but
one would need to take care about it.)

Of course, this is only my own personal interpretation and opinion --
IANAL, TINLA, YMMV, etc, etc.

Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International

 

[Gabriel B.]

However, imagine simple situation:

1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.

No need to continue. You write something that uses a plugin, Eolas
sues you. Don't have to mind about trolltech

 

[John Lenton]

No need to continue. You write something that uses a plugin, Eolas
sues you. Don't have to mind about trolltech

not if you live in a sane country.

--
John Lenton ([email protected]) -- Random fortune:
Preserve wildlife -- pickle a squirrel today!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCCUvGgPqu395ykGsRApXAAJ4yh+M42naJ9xzqDDxZpJ3zK/cnfgCdERyz
3HiV7iHkOzT+dbsoJ9715Jw=
=QZwp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Mike Meyer]

This is odd. They claim it's a GPL'ed version, but it's a trolltech
license that forces you to release your code under gpl even tought
their's not!

I'm not against a company getting it's share with their product.
that's what motivated them in the first place. but DONT LIE! don't
call it gpl when it's not.

Gpl make it very explicity it deals with the program as a whole, in
the meaning of a executable code. What they're trying to achive here
is that, by adding this paragraph, they will cover the "dll use" under
the gpl.

By that cover-all definition they came up, i can't use Internet
Explorer to see a site hosted with a gpl'ed server! i can't even use a
BSD program to grep a file!

Now the latter isn't true, because the BSD license isn't viral.

On the other hand, you're conflating data and code. If that stands,
then you'd be only be allowed to distribute code written with GNU
Emacs under the GPL, which is goes against long-standing position of
the FSF on GNU Emacs.

<mike

 

[JanC]

Jeremy Bowers schreef:

Copyright-based models can't handle modern computer programs,

Most countries have computer program specific parts in their copyright
laws...

 

[Carlos Ribeiro]

So maybe it's time to resurrect anygui, maybe in a simplified version
which can only interface to, say, PyQt or Tkinter -- 'eithergui' maybe.

'onegui' to rule them all...

--
Carlos Ribeiro
Consultoria em Projetos
blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com
blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com
mail: (e-mail address removed)
mail: (e-mail address removed)

 

[Cappy2112]

For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
option in the near future.

This applies to QT-4 only.
I wonder how much of PyQT is ready for QT4?

Anyway its time for a PyQT based VB-killer [ a GPL one ].

Anyway its time for a PyQT based VB-killer [ a GPL one ].

I aggree, and for now, it's Eric3, AND it can be compiled & run under
windows, without Cygwin.

Ok, it's not exactly a VB-Killer, but it's the closest thing for now.

VB has it's drawbacks, but can you image the how much more acceptance
python would get, if we had *more* a VB-like designer, for multiple GUI
toolkits, no less?

 

[Stelios Xanthakis]

So maybe it's time to resurrect anygui, maybe in a simplified version
which can only interface to, say, PyQt or Tkinter -- 'eithergui' maybe.


Alex

Done already: 'Twilight GUI'!

http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/~sxanth/twgui/


However, it's very furstrating working on 4 toolkits in parallel
and because some of the don't have good documentation, I'm doing
other things right now


Stelios

 

[Jeremy Bowers]

You can distribute GPL'ed code in binary form, you just have to make the
sources available as well. And, yes I would use this as a test: if your
program needs gpl-ed code for some of it's functionality, you have to
licence your program according to the GPL - unless you distribute the
GPL'ed parts separately and your program is still basically functioning
without the GPL'ed code.

The problem with this is what I've called the "patch hole" in another
context [1]. The problem with this definition is that I can *always*
distribute GPL'ed parts separately and re-combine them arbitrarily upon
execution, and it's not even particularly hard. Write your code with the
GPL'ed code embedded. At the end, before you distribute, extract it and
record the extraction so your program can "rewind it"; you're left with
nothing in your code that is GPLed. Later, the user will go get the GPL
software, and you software "rewinds" the extraction process, and the user
is left with something that is byte-for-byte identical to what you weren't
allowed to distribute by the GPL.... so what good was the GPL?

(Compiling issues can of course be extracted away, which is what a linker
does.)

If this is all the protection that the GPL provides, than it is utterly
useless. But truly nailing down what it means is even harder.

Nobody really knows what the GPL means when it gets down to it; the entire
copyright-based model is broken and unrepairable in a software context.
It's like nailing jello to a wall, you just can't hold it up there.

[1]:http://www.jerf.org/writings/communicationEthics/node10.html#SECTION000105000000000000000

 

[Josef Dalcolmo]

You can distribute GPL'ed code in binary form, you just have to make
the sources available as well. And, yes I would use this as a test:
if your program needs gpl-ed code for some of it's functionality, you
have to licence your program according to the GPL - unless you
distribute the GPL'ed parts separately and your program is still
basically functioning without the GPL'ed code.

Now, if you are unsure about these questions and are serious about
writing a program using GPL'ed code, the FSF is probably willing to
help you with your questions.

Besides this, why not putting your code under the GPL?

- Josef

 

[Jeremy Bowers]

What you described is not ok according to the GPL - since you distributed
a binary thats derived from GPL software (and you didn't publish it source
code under the GPL too).

No you didn't. You distributed a binary completely free of any GPL code
whatsoever. The *user* combined your binary and the GPL to produce another
binary, which will never be distributed at all.

In copyright terms, which is what the GPL works under since that is the
law it has, what you distributed is completely unrelated to the GPL'ed
program; there's no grounds to call it "derived".

You may need to re-read the sequence more carefully, or I may have gotten
it wrong.

 

[Max M]

You can distribute GPL'ed code in binary form, you just have to make
the sources available as well. And, yes I would use this as a test:
if your program needs gpl-ed code for some of it's functionality, you
have to licence your program according to the GPL - unless you
distribute the GPL'ed parts separately and your program is still
basically functioning without the GPL'ed code.

Besides this, why not putting your code under the GPL?

GPL is not suitable for all kinds of software. It's nice if you are
sharing code with others, but if you are developing something like a
desktop application that you want to sell for money, using the GPL is a
bad idea.


--

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science

 

[Damjan]

The problem with this is what I've called the "patch hole" in another

context [1]. The problem with this definition is that I can *always*
distribute GPL'ed parts separately and re-combine them arbitrarily upon
execution, and it's not even particularly hard. Write your code with the
GPL'ed code embedded. At the end, before you distribute, extract it and
record the extraction so your program can "rewind it"; you're left with
nothing in your code that is GPLed. Later, the user will go get the GPL
software, and you software "rewinds" the extraction process, and the user
is left with something that is byte-for-byte identical to what you weren't
allowed to distribute by the GPL.... so what good was the GPL?

What you described is not ok according to the GPL - since you distributed a
binary thats derived from GPL software (and you didn't publish it source
code under the GPL too).

Nobody really knows what the GPL means when it gets down to it;

If you don't know, you should ask the person whose GPL code you are using.

 

[Jorge Luiz Godoy Filho]

GPL is not suitable for all kinds of software. It's nice if you are
sharing code with others, but if you are developing something like a
desktop application that you want to sell for money, using the GPL is a
bad idea.

If you're earning money, why not pay for the libraries that allowed you to
do so?


Be seeing you,
Godoy.

 

[Robert Kern]

No you didn't. You distributed a binary completely free of any GPL code
whatsoever. The *user* combined your binary and the GPL to produce another
binary, which will never be distributed at all.

In copyright terms, which is what the GPL works under since that is the
law it has, what you distributed is completely unrelated to the GPL'ed
program; there's no grounds to call it "derived".

You might be on firmer ground if it were legally clear exactly what
"derived work" means. Unfortunately, the courts have been skirting
around the issue of defining "derived work" particularly as it pertains
to software. It is entirely possible that a judge would conclude that
your software is a derived work of the GPL software.

Until such matters are unequivocally determined in a court that has
jurisdiction over you, do you really want to open yourself to legal risk
and certain ill-will from the community?

I'll reiterate my strategy: follow the intentions of the copyright owner
unless if I have actual case law on my side.

--
Robert Kern
(e-mail address removed)

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

 

[Arich Chanachai]

Max M wrote:




If you're earning money, why not pay for the libraries that allowed you to
do so?

Exactly. But what about those who know how to program but have not a
cent of money? I have never seen a commercial license for a library
which stated that you did not have to pay the license fee until you have
made that much money in sales from the software which you created, in
part, from that library. I would be in favor of such a license, but I
haven't seen anything of the sort.

Be seeing you,
Godoy.

Be seeing you too, lol.

- Arich

 

[Robert Kern]

> I have never seen a commercial license for a library
which stated that you did not have to pay the license fee until you have
made that much money in sales from the software which you created, in
part, from that library. I would be in favor of such a license, but I
haven't seen anything of the sort.

http://www.fastio.com/licensePlain.html

See their license option for shareware developers.

--
Robert Kern
(e-mail address removed)

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter