Very Computer

by **Beelseb** » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:35:54

Hi, I'm currently working on a project which I want to make shareware
(please no flames, that's my decision). However various parts of it
*kind of* require GPLed software. To explain a bit farther, what I'm
writing is a multi-game level editor and it will most likely call upon
for example id-softwares QBSP and the like (which are GPLed). What I
am trying to do is keep on the right side of the GPL. If I were to
make my editor in such a way that there is a preference for what level
compiler to use (i.e. select a path for the compiler) and then have
the software call that path, would I be on the right side of the GPL.

Further, if that preference was by default set to GPLed software,
would I still be on the right side of the GPL?

Thanks

Bob

by **Bellyey** » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:07:07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Hi, I'm currently working on a project which I want to make shareware
> (please no flames, that's my decision). However various parts of it
> *kind of* require GPLed software. To explain a bit farther, what I'm
> writing is a multi-game level editor and it will most likely call upon
> for example id-softwares QBSP and the like (which are GPLed). What I
> am trying to do is keep on the right side of the GPL. If I were to
> make my editor in such a way that there is a preference for what level
> compiler to use (i.e. select a path for the compiler) and then have
> the software call that path, would I be on the right side of the GPL.

> Further, if that preference was by default set to GPLed software,
> would I still be on the right side of the GPL?

Ask in a gnu group, I think there is a discuss (gnu.misc.discuss?).
They are well used to answering this type of question.

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
begin GPG D694 FB76 12FC 94A7 4557 9951 8734 A4AC 7AA4 141E
Ian Smith
Worst . . . signature . . . ever !

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE9vW67hzSkrHqkFB4RAmC+AKCrXF84o7YtzSdUTkB7XdhpwCPEqwCgoDJC
Tj4mU/MxSWDuFBdU30gWQHw=
=MICk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

by **Tim Smit** » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:33:13

Quote:> *kind of* require GPLed software. To explain a bit farther, what I'm
> writing is a multi-game level editor and it will most likely call upon for
> example id-softwares QBSP and the like (which are GPLed). What I

That's fine. Pretty much everyone agrees that

system("some_GPL_program args...");

(or popen, or rolling your own with fork/exec) does not impose any GPL
obligations on your program.

--Tim Smith

by **Charlie Eber** » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 03:48:11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Hi, I'm currently working on a project which I want to make shareware
> (please no flames, that's my decision). However various parts of it
> *kind of* require GPLed software. To explain a bit farther, what I'm
> writing is a multi-game level editor and it will most likely call upon
> for example id-softwares QBSP and the like (which are GPLed). What I
> am trying to do is keep on the right side of the GPL. If I were to
> make my editor in such a way that there is a preference for what level
> compiler to use (i.e. select a path for the compiler) and then have
> the software call that path, would I be on the right side of the GPL.

> Further, if that preference was by default set to GPLed software,
> would I still be on the right side of the GPL?

> Thanks

> Bob

Calling a GPL program is one thing, the binary executable that is.

Pulling in code and integrating it will require you to release
the whole thing under the GPL.

That's it.

Charlie

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9vekAM6d6TeMh4TQRAlyMAJ4pTvY3OiYDcvg9AOQmIwStilpR4ACeOpDA
4qK4fOyj0/DIPoEx6H1GdWQ=
=YIoA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

by **Linonu** » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:02:15

After takin' a swig o' grog, Charlie Ebert belched out this bit o' wisdom:

Quote:> Calling a GPL program is one thing, the binary executable that is.

> Pulling in code and integrating it will require you to release
> the whole thing under the GPL.

> That's it.

No. You need only provide code for the code you used, not the code your
wrote. Exception: If you "improved" a GPL module, you are obliged to
pass along your "improvements".

Pretty straightforward.

by **Charlie Eber** » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:33:05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Charlie Ebert belched out this bit o' wisdom:

>> Calling a GPL program is one thing, the binary executable that is.

>> Pulling in code and integrating it will require you to release
>> the whole thing under the GPL.

>> That's it.

> No. You need only provide code for the code you used, not the code your
> wrote. Exception: If you "improved" a GPL module, you are obliged to
> pass along your "improvements".

> Pretty straightforward.

Ah, NO! KNEW! NEWWWWWEEEWWW!

It's not improved up it, it's 'based upon it'.
And if it's 'based upon it' then you must GPL *IT*.

How ludicras. Judge says, "Boy! Did you improve that program".

HI. Thanks for the laugh.

Charlie

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9vg+nM6d6TeMh4TQRAl+ZAJ9SE3moV0kSRn8rJg4x1U4hS22mfgCfavGV
qNLfbDXcvEK80g5RGfGpnVU=
=Fbo/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

by **Beelseb** » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:54:09

> > *kind of* require GPLed software. To explain a bit farther, what I'm
> > writing is a multi-game level editor and it will most likely call upon for
> > example id-softwares QBSP and the like (which are GPLed). What I

> That's fine. Pretty much everyone agrees that

> system("some_GPL_program args...");

> (or popen, or rolling your own with fork/exec) does not impose any GPL
> obligations on your program.

Hmm... that's as I suspected, however now let's suppose I am
distributing these binaries with my program. i.e. My app is a package
and within the package I have the GPL binaries (along with my app).
Am I still on the right side of the GPL or not?

Bob

by **Bellyey** » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:22:25

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Hmm... that's as I suspected, however now let's suppose I am
> distributing these binaries with my program. i.e. My app is a package
> and within the package I have the GPL binaries (along with my app).
> Am I still on the right side of the GPL or not?

Jesus *ing christ, just ask the *ing GNU folks, they wrote the
*ing thing. Get the *ing idea?

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
begin GPG D694 FB76 12FC 94A7 4557 9951 8734 A4AC 7AA4 141E
Ian Smith
Worst . . . signature . . . ever !

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.veryComputer.com/

iD8DBQE9vmFohzSkrHqkFB4RAp0gAKCDt2wDzdxLFDLxBV/GEnQESSy9WACgv6Hg
pelnaMUXSKdMKpxHxm9nDuI=
=BELP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

by **Tim Smit** » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 13:30:51

Quote:>> That's fine. Pretty much everyone agrees that

>> system("some_GPL_program args...");

>> (or popen, or rolling your own with fork/exec) does not impose any GPL
>> obligations on your program.

> Hmm... that's as I suspected, however now let's suppose I am distributing
> these binaries with my program. i.e. My app is a package and within the
> package I have the GPL binaries (along with my app). Am I still on the
> right side of the GPL or not?

If you distribute the binaries of those programs, you will need to
distribute the source to those programs (or make it available via written
offer to any third party....which is a big hassle, so you'll want to just
distribute it with the binaries). Other than that, you should be OK, under
the "mere aggregation" clause of GPL.

I've seen commercial companies do this with gpg, in fact. Their installer
for their product also installs the gpg binary, and they use gpg via
fork/exec and pipes to do their cryptography. I also vaguely recall a
company doing something like that with rcs.

--Tim Smith

by **Linonu** » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:50:42

After takin' a swig o' grog, Charlie Ebert belched out this bit o' wisdom:

Quote:>> No. You need only provide code for the code you used, not the code your
>> wrote. Exception: If you "improved" a GPL module, you are obliged to
>> pass along your "improvements".

>> Pretty straightforward.

> Ah, NO! KNEW! NEWWWWWEEEWWW!

> It's not improved up it, it's 'based upon it'.
> And if it's 'based upon it' then you must GPL *IT*.

> How ludicras. Judge says, "Boy! Did you improve that program".

> HI. Thanks for the laugh.

> Charlie

Mere linkage means nothing, even if the library is GPL, not LGPL.
You can keep your code secret, but of course, not the library code.

--

by **Charlie Eber** » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:54:20

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>> > *kind of* require GPLed software. To explain a bit farther, what I'm
>> > writing is a multi-game level editor and it will most likely call upon for
>> > example id-softwares QBSP and the like (which are GPLed). What I

>> That's fine. Pretty much everyone agrees that

>> system("some_GPL_program args...");

>> (or popen, or rolling your own with fork/exec) does not impose any GPL
>> obligations on your program.

> Hmm... that's as I suspected, however now let's suppose I am
> distributing these binaries with my program. i.e. My app is a package
> and within the package I have the GPL binaries (along with my app).
> Am I still on the right side of the GPL or not?

> Bob

That would be fine because they will have the source code available
on the internet. You won't have to package the source code with
them that way.

Charlie

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9vpMyM6d6TeMh4TQRAgsOAKDFxAsvzwKY4JWAwpWK7FGIIlH5OACgnP4D
Hjmul/kEaVHjfTF0LS0PSg0=
=Wy7N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

by **Charlie Eber** » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:55:17

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Charlie Ebert belched out this bit o' wisdom:

>>> No. You need only provide code for the code you used, not the code your
>>> wrote. Exception: If you "improved" a GPL module, you are obliged to
>>> pass along your "improvements".

>>> Pretty straightforward.

>> Ah, NO! KNEW! NEWWWWWEEEWWW!

>> It's not improved up it, it's 'based upon it'.
>> And if it's 'based upon it' then you must GPL *IT*.

>> How ludicras. Judge says, "Boy! Did you improve that program".

>> HI. Thanks for the laugh.

>> Charlie

> Mere linkage means nothing, even if the library is GPL, not LGPL.
> You can keep your code secret, but of course, not the library code.

When I wrote this I wasn't talking about mere linkage.
We were talking about scraping up some code out of a program
written under the GPL.

Charlie

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9vpNrM6d6TeMh4TQRAv2JAJ0VT6kVrCBqI6pRWQsuK30YuOen9QCfaKUs
K3V8gVMDC7GV1EyAc/fKzAo=
=/t//
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

by **Edward Rost** » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:12:04

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Charlie Ebert belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> > Calling a GPL program is one thing, the binary executable that is.

> > Pulling in code and integrating it will require you to release
> > the whole thing under the GPL.

> > That's it.

> No. You need only provide code for the code you used, not the code your
> wrote. Exception: If you "improved" a GPL module, you are obliged to
> pass along your "improvements".

> Pretty straightforward.

That sounds like you're describing the LGPL there.

If any GPL code is linked to your program, then the whole program is GPL.

-Ed

by **Linonu** » Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:40:46

After takin' a swig o' grog, Charlie Ebert belched out this bit o' wisdom:

Quote:> When I wrote this I wasn't talking about mere linkage.
> We were talking about scraping up some code out of a program
> written under the GPL.

Now that, I buy. You can't snatch some code from someone else and
incorporate it into your own code without full attribution and providing
your "new" code, too. At least as I understand it.

Chris

by **Charlie Eber** » Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:30:51

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Charlie Ebert belched out this bit o' wisdom:

>> When I wrote this I wasn't talking about mere linkage.
>> We were talking about scraping up some code out of a program
>> written under the GPL.

> Now that, I buy. You can't snatch some code from someone else and
> incorporate it into your own code without full attribution and providing
> your "new" code, too. At least as I understand it.

> Chris

And speaking about buy, the GPL license stands for free code as in
FREEDOM, not *$PRICE*.

That's why GPL supporters don't run around all day long protesting
RedHat's overly inflated $124 professional pricetag.

Charlie

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9v98xM6d6TeMh4TQRAvAtAKCu16daFJ9pDVJrF1lx2+MBDWRnMQCeNlEh
TOkV1G5hmHJcukWWIpj47iA=
=qx2r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----