Very Computer

If I use a GPL-ed XML parser in my application, does that mean I have to GPL
my application? I am using the parser pretty much as a black-box, changing
absolutely nothing in it.

Depends, if it is LGPLed, you can use it (link into it).
If it is pure GPL, youre SOL

Peter
--
The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Win 95,
Win NT 4.0 or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.

        Yes, even if you make the parser as a seperate library and link to
it. Your code must be GPL-ed if you use this 'free' software. If it's
LGPLed, sure, but GPLed, nope.
        Isn't freedom _wonderful_?!

Richard
--
My .sig blatant plug
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~ret28

SOL? Don't recognise that one.

If it is pure GPL then you could try asking the copyright holder to release
it under a duel license (al la Mozilla).

--
David Dorward                                http://david.us-lot.org/
+++ Divide by cucumber error. Please reinstall Universe and reboot.

Sure it is, because you have the option to use another program if you
don't like this license, an option that's not as unrealistic as it is
in Microsoft Country. How can you expect someone to give away his code
for free while others use it to fill their purses?

King George.

Sort out of luck

Quote:> If it is pure GPL then you could try asking the copyright holder to
> release it under a duel license (al la Mozilla).

Yep, or roll your own, or try to find something similar

Peter
--
Registered Linux user # 226652

        I must have missed the bit where he wrote that he was going to sell
it *sigh*. There are open source licenses other than the GPL, and in most
cases a lot free-er. I don't deny that people should have the right to
license however they want, but I do think it hypocritical to call the GPL
the ultimate free license. Just because someone is trying to make money off
something, it doesn't make it evil. Why not help them, rather then being
resentful?

Richard
--
My .sig blatant plug
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~ret28

Free-er for who? GPL gives total control to the copyright holder. Other
licenses may (or may not) give more controll to the user of the code. So
free-er depends on your p.o.v.

Quote:> I don't deny that people should have the right to license however they
> want, but I do think it hypocritical to call the GPL the ultimate free
> license. Just because someone is trying to make money off something,
> it doesn't make it evil. Why not help them, rather then being
> resentful?

That is still possible by dual licensing.

If he's not going to sell it where's the problem of using the GPL'ed
code? If he uses it and distributes his program also under the GPL he
loses nothing (and he can still keep the copyright for the part he wrote
and even rewrite it not to use the GPL'ed code and then sell this version).
If he doesn't want to distribute it he also has no problem at all - you
don't have to publish code, GPL or not. Only if he want's to make money
from using other peoples code he's in trouble and better should look for
some other tool with a different license or - horribili dictu - use a
commercial product.

Quote:> Just because someone is trying to make money off something, it doesn't make
> it evil. Why not help them, rather then being resentful?

Of course, it doesn't make it evil. But why is not giving code to everybody
who wants to make money from it without getting anything back 'resentful'?
For me this looks more like the difference between giving money to a charity
to help make the world a better place to live in and just throwing money
onto the street.
                                          Regards, Jens
--
      _  _____  _____

  _  | |  | |    | |          AG Moebius, Institut fuer Molekuelphysik
 | |_| |  | |    | |          Fachbereich Physik, Freie Universitaet Berlin
  \___/ens|_|homs|_|oerring   Tel: ++49 (0)30 838 - 53394 / FAX: - 56046

        So, all open source software should be GPLed? Take a look on
Freshmeat sometime; plenty of open source, non-commercial software takes
other licenses.

Quote:>If he uses it and distributes his program also under the GPL he
>loses nothing

        Except the ability to either sell his software or have it help
others of non-GPL idealogy.

Quote:>(and he can still keep the copyright for the part he wrote
>and even rewrite it not to use the GPL'ed code and then sell this version).
>If he doesn't want to distribute it he also has no problem at all - you
>don't have to publish code, GPL or not. Only if he want's to make money
>from using other peoples code he's in trouble and better should look for
>some other tool with a different license or - horribili dictu - use a
>commercial product.

        Or maybe even decontaminate the XML parser. If appropriate, stick it
in a seperate daemon program that is itself GPLed, and have it serve up data
to the main program in a seperated enough way that it doesn't get
contaminated.

Quote:>Of course, it doesn't make it evil. But why is not giving code to everybody
>who wants to make money from it without getting anything back 'resentful'?
>For me this looks more like the difference between giving money to a charity
>to help make the world a better place to live in and just throwing money
>onto the street.

        You got the charity bit right; GPL is charity where you demand
something in return from the unfortunates you help. A good example is the
Christian missionary in one particular South Park episode, working in
Ethiopa; 'Now children, reading the Bible plus worshipping Jesus equals
food!'. Fine, GPL software, but don't pretend it's really the ultimate in
being free and open. However community minded a company is, they cannot
afford to let one of their sold products get GPL infected.
        Bottom line is, GPLed code is only of any use to other GPL coders.

Richard
--
My .sig blatant plug
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~ret28

This one flew right over my head.  Exactly what is the problem with the
copyright holder retaining control?  What else is supposed to happen?

Quote:

>> I don't deny that people should have the right to license however they
>> want, but I do think it hypocritical to call the GPL the ultimate free
>> license. Just because someone is trying to make money off something, it
>> doesn't make it evil. Why not help them, rather then being resentful?

> That is still possible by dual licensing.

Not really, because the GPL allows you to *run* the program concerned,
or to make any modifications to it for your own purposes, for free.
More like: `We'll give you free food parcels without asking anything
in return, except that you aren't allowed to sell them to anyone
else'.  Except that the GPL *does* give you rights to redistribute,
provided that you share the technology behind any improvements you
make: `We'll give you machinery for producing food, together with the
blueprints for building the machines so you can build your own.
However, if you try to sell machinery built with this technology, you
have to share the blueprints, together with those for any improvements
you make, with the buyer, under the same license'.

Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, but the bottom line is that the
GPL grants at least as many rights as a simple `free to use but not to
distribute' license.  When you use a piece of GPL code, it doesn't
restrict any of the rights you would have had if that software didn't
exist.  Moreover, you can always look at GPL code, figure out how it
works, and then write your own, proprietary implementation.

Agreed, GPL code isn't `Free' in the way BSD code is.  But that's its
strength: it protects against aggressive, proprietary code forks that
could subvert the technology.  The reason why Microsoft are so hot
under the collar about Linux is that they can't `Embrace and Extend'
it into oblivion.

The irony is that the GPL was originally intended to reduce
duplication of effort, whereas in fact what we have is a proliferation
of different projects doing basically the same thing in subtly
incompatible ways.

--

University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ

        True, I'll respect freedom to license however one wishes, but I
consider the GPL to a have a measure of hypocrisy to it. Preaching 'freedom'
and 'open source', when it is in fact closed and useless to any coders of a
different ideology. Just ask BSD developers about all the Linux drivers
they're able to port.... but of course, BSD is an evil proprietary
capitalist system that shouldn't benefit from 'open' source.

Quote:>--
>              ..        ..                  .'  
>             '         '     .'            '    
>    ':''.':':'':':''.':''.  :   :'':':''.':''.  
>     : .'.' '..: : .' : .' : ''.'..: :..' : .'  
>    :         :  :          '..'  :            
>   :         :  :                :              
> .'        .' .'               .'              

        Is this elvish?

Richard
--
My .sig blatant plug
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~ret28

Quote:>    True, I'll respect freedom to license however one wishes, but I
> consider the GPL to a have a measure of hypocrisy to it. Preaching
> 'freedom' and 'open source', when it is in fact closed and useless to
> any coders of a different ideology. Just ask BSD developers about all
> the Linux drivers they're able to port.... but of course, BSD is an evil
> proprietary capitalist system that shouldn't benefit from 'open' source.

Open Source and the GPL were not invented to support "proprietary
capitalist systems" as you call them. After all, Microsoft was not
invented to support the "anarchic systems" either. The word freedom
does not include being free for misuse and support of the capitalist
system, which was the original reason for the GPL's invention.

King George.

->>>If I use a GPL-ed XML parser in my application, does that mean I have to
->>>GPL my application? I am using the parser pretty much as a black-box,
->>>changing absolutely nothing in it.
->>       Yes, even if you make the parser as a seperate library and link to
->> it. Your code must be GPL-ed if you use this 'free' software. If it's
->> LGPLed, sure, but GPLed, nope.
->>       Isn't freedom _wonderful_?!
->>
->> Richard
->
->Sure it is, because you have the option to use another program if you
->don't like this license, an option that's not as unrealistic as it is
->in Microsoft Country. How can you expect someone to give away his code
->for free while others use it to fill their purses?
-       I must have missed the bit where he wrote that he was going to sell
-it *sigh*.

If he's not going to redistribute it in any way then he can use the
software as he sees fit. But once he decides to redistribute the work,
for sale or for not, he must make his software GPL.

- There are open source licenses other than the GPL, and in most
-cases a lot free-er.

The eternal debate. It's all a matter of perseptive. The GPL is free-er from
the perspective of the software and its derivatives. Other are free-er from
the perspective of the developers of the derivatives. As to which one is
more important is a matter of perspective.

- I don't deny that people should have the right to
-license however they want, but I do think it hypocritical to call the GPL
-the ultimate free license. Just because someone is trying to make money off
-something, it doesn't make it evil. Why not help them, rather then being
-resentful?

The GPL doesn't prevent the making of money. However it does turn software
distribution into a free market commodity business by lowering the barrier
of entry into the marketplace.

As to your question, it's simple economics. The easiest way to create value
is to create scarcity. In the software business this is done by withholding
the source, and licensing the software so that it cannot be legally copied.

Therefore anyone wanting to make money in this way must by definition withhold
the source and relicense the software. Both of which the GPL explitly
prohibits.

It's simple. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The price of doing
business with the GPL is that your software must also be GPLed.

Sounds fair. Doesn't it?

BAJ
-
-Richard
---
-My .sig blatant plug
-http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~ret28