Copyright worries (OpenGL)

This is a discussion on Copyright worries (OpenGL) within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by jwenting the GPL attempts to restrict that right by effectively stating that any derivative work IS the ...

  1. #16
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    21,794
    Quote Originally Posted by jwenting
    the GPL attempts to restrict that right by effectively stating that any derivative work IS the original work and therefore belongs to the owners of that original work.
    That is false, but anyway, "the GPL has no business in this conversation at all", especially since the license that sarah22 is concerned with is not a version of the GPL.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  2. #17
    Registered User UltraKing227's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    USA, New york
    Posts
    123
    i am quoting 'myself' in here.

  3. #18
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    21,794
    Quote Originally Posted by UltraKing227
    i am quoting 'myself' in here.
    In that case you should be wary of offering legal advice. I suspect that with respect to sarah22's situation, your first statement may be correct due to fair use, but phrased in the way you did, it could be miscontrued as legal opinion that such creation and distribution of a derivative work from code published in such a book is always permitted.

    Your second statement also sounds problematic in my layman understanding: sarah22 might be guilty of copyright infringement for distributing the original code as-is without the "written permission of the copyright holder", even if it is done offline and with no commercial interest.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  4. #19
    chococoder
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    515
    Quote Originally Posted by laserlight View Post
    That is false, but anyway, "the GPL has no business in this conversation at all", especially since the license that sarah22 is concerned with is not a version of the GPL.
    It is not false. The GPL forces you to release any work using in any way any GPL licensed code or under GPL.
    This has been interpreted as meaning by some that even compiling something using a GPL licensed compiler would force that product to be released under GPL or calling some shared library which is only ever used in binary form would force you to release under GPL.

    Effectively then it forces you to release your own work to the GPL crowd whenever you so much as sniff at a bit of GPL licensed whatever.

    This is by design, the creators of the GPL want to force all software to fall under the GPL (which they control, the GPL itself not being open at all but strictly controlled by them).

    GPL was brought up by someone else earlier

  5. #20
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    21,794
    Quote Originally Posted by jwenting
    It is not false. The GPL forces you to release any work using in any way any GPL licensed code or under GPL.
    It is false because the GPL does not effectively state "that any derivative work IS the original work". Requiring that a derivative work be licensed under the same license as the original work does not make the derivative work the original work.

    The part stating that the derivative work "belongs to the owners of that original work" is also false: no version of the GPL asserts such a copyright claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by jwenting
    This has been interpreted as meaning by some that even compiling something using a GPL licensed compiler would force that product to be released under GPL or calling some shared library which is only ever used in binary form would force you to release under GPL.
    Yes, but whether such interpretations will hold in any or all jurisdictions is another matter.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  6. #21
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by jwenting View Post
    This is by design, the creators of the GPL want to force all software to fall under the GPL (which they control, the GPL itself not being open at all but strictly controlled by them).
    This is also false. The GPL comes in versions. Any code you use is licensed under a particular version and that version is NOT subject to change. That is the same as any other license. No one writes laws or contracts that say "this contract is subject to any change desired by the authors of the contract, and will remain binding regardless". Hogwash!

    The goal is to keep software under the GPL under the GPL -- it does not force anyone else to use it. Otherwise, closed source types would simply say "oh, well, I can take the code, modify it (which is allowed by the GPL) and then re-release it under a proprietary license". That last bit is not allowed by default, but:

    You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
    In other words, you could in fact use the code and re-release it under a proprietary license IF you get permission from the holder of the GPL license (presumably, the author). So if you have a GPL'd project and Apple comes along and says, "We'll give you $2 million if we can use that in a proprietary project" -- you can take the money without violating the GPL. Just everyone must be comfortable that there is already an open source version in circulation.

    As for this case in which "this has been interpreted as meaning by some that even compiling something using a GPL licensed compiler would force that product to be released under GPL" I'd love to hear the details* since this clearly and obviously goes against some of the terms of the licence itself and it's spirit:

    A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
    In other words, if you redistribute a library, yes it remains under the GPL but your work does not. The same will be true if you eg, distribute a binary version compiled with gcc (gcc remains GPL'd, your executable does not have to be).

    Quotes are from GPL v3:
    The GNU General Public License - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)

    * you are pretty clearly fear-mongering in an absurdist way IMO. Why not just admit you hate the whole OSS concept a priori and argue about that?
    Last edited by MK27; 03-31-2010 at 07:42 AM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  7. #22
    chococoder
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    515
    read the GPL. It states clearly that anything using GPL licensed bits MUST be GPL itself.
    That means that if I link to a shared library (even if I never compile it or even ship it, rather I reference it on the operating system assuming it's already there, even if I do that indirectly) my own code is now forced to be released under GPL.

    That's the viral concept. That's why the GPL is completely unsuitable for most commercial purposes.
    To circumvent that the "classpath exception" was invented for Java applications (and maybe similar things elsewhere) that excepts code from falling under GPL that merely references libraries falling under GPL without actually including source from those libraries or modifying them.
    Without such restrictions linking something to a GPL licensed runtime library would force your application to adopt GPL itself.
    Which is of course not something you want if you're not a true believer.

  8. #23
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    21,794
    Quote Originally Posted by jwenting
    read the GPL. It states clearly that anything using GPL licensed bits MUST be GPL itself.
    In my lay opinion, I think that neither version 2 nor version 3 of the GPL "states clearly that anything using GPL licensed bits MUST be GPL itself". They are pretty clear about derivative works, but not on "anything using GPL licensed bits". Incidentally, "read the GPL" is ambiguous, because there is more than one version of the GPL in common use.

    Quote Originally Posted by jwenting
    That means that if I link to a shared library (even if I never compile it or even ship it, rather I reference it on the operating system assuming it's already there, even if I do that indirectly) my own code is now forced to be released under GPL.
    You are asserting a common (and intended) interpretation, but it does not necessarily hold true in all jurisdictions, e.g., it may be the case that a court will rule that the combination constitutes a collective work, and that the reciprocity requirement does not apply to collective works. Still, one would have to be either a brave or foolish licensee to test such an alternative interpretation.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  9. #24
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by jwenting View Post
    read the GPL. It states clearly that anything using GPL licensed bits MUST be GPL itself.
    How illiterate are you? Immediately above your post is a citation from the GPL. Lemme cite it again, and YOU READ IT this time:

    A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
    And let me add that while your interpretation may be a common one, as laserlight says, that is only amongst people who don't like the open source concept and are politically motivated to LIE, cheat, twist etc etc any and all information (which is exactly what you want to do -- you don't care about the truth).

    Point being NO ONE who uses or is responsible for the GPL has ever claimed linking an executable to a GPL'd shared library means that executable must use the GPL -- because it doesn't. NO ONE has claimed this, NO ONE has tried to make a case of it, it has not happened, it will never happen, and as I hope is clear now (if you can read) it is not applicable by the terms of the GPL itself, which is why this would be a singularly unpopular opinion amongst advocates of it's use.

    Your interpretation is in line with a Christian Fundamentalist interpretation of heavy metal music -- that it is clearly the work of the devil and the purpose of heavy metal is to further the Father of Lies' business on earth. I can understand why they might be upset, since a lot of metal bands do use Christian imagery to openly criticize Christian ideology, but that does not make them demons, etc. Not hard to work out the motivations here.

    So while I am sure it is true that the closed source model is bad for software developers and bad for software consumers, it is still good for software shareholders and if you are some kind of right-wing muffinhead determined to kiss your master's ___ at all costs, like some slobbering automaton, then of course you would want to spread bulls**t about the GPL. Have fun Igor.
    Last edited by MK27; 04-12-2010 at 04:56 AM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  10. #25
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,487
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    So while I am sure it is true that the closed source model is bad for software developers and bad for software consumers, it is still good for software shareholders and if you are some kind of right-wing muffinhead determined to kiss your master's ___ at all costs, like some slobbering automaton, then of course you would want to spread bulls**t about the GPL. Have fun Igor.
    Did you need to say that?
    All was going well with your post until you... said something totally confusing.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  11. #26
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    21,794
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27
    Point being NO ONE who uses or is responsible for the GPL has ever claimed linking an executable to a GPL'd shared library means that executable must use the GPL -- because it doesn't.
    I may be wrong, but I believe that that is the FSF's stand, to some extent. For example, read their answer to the FAQ Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  12. #27
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    21,794
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27
    Sure, but the Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries? question makes it quite clear that you can
    Notice that that FAQ is concerned with Free Software in general, not only those licensed under the GPL.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  13. #28
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by jwenting View Post
    correct, and the GPL attempts to restrict that right by effectively stating that any derivative work IS the original work and therefore belongs to the owners of that original work.
    No, you would have to site ONE SINGLE INSTANCE where your interpretation has been applied, otherwise you are just fantasizing.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  14. #29
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,487
    There are other aspects to the GPL that can be criticized. But definitely that's not one of them.

    The viral connotation often attributed to the GPL license is instead usually said in the context of static-linked libraries, which not a big issue under Linux, but can be on other systems. GPL supporters do not deny this, they simply find the term "viral" irritating. GPL critics understand this annoys them, but find the term very appropriate.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Problem building Quake source
    By Silvercord in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-11-2010, 09:13 AM
  2. Linking OpenGL in Dev-C++
    By linkofazeroth in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-13-2005, 10:17 AM
  3. OpenGL Window
    By Morgul in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-15-2005, 12:34 PM
  4. OpenGL .dll vs video card dll
    By Silvercord in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-12-2003, 06:57 PM
  5. opengl code not working
    By Unregistered in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-14-2002, 09:01 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21