> > The problem that CORBA can be used to wrap just about anything, so this
> > basically nullify the affects that the GPL tries to enforce.
> > Let's say I want to pack KWord's document translation functions. I take
> > and convert them so they output something my application understand.
> > Then I wrap them in a CORBA object, release the code to this, but not to
> > application that calls it. Now, apperantly, this isn't violating the
> > but if I would've taken and put those functions in the code itself, it
> > *would* have been a violation. Even if I did it as a seperate,
> > loaded library.
> Would it ? I thought that library linking was considered to be ok ?
> After all people need to use the C library/sockets etc.
Yes, it would.
The libraries that you mention are LGPL.
You can't even link to GPL library without GPLing your code.
For some detials.
> > What about the ReadLine library, for that matter? If I pack it in CORBA
> > object, do I get to use it without having to GPL it?
> I guess the answer to that would be : "yes". However I think that if
> this was the case, it is a clear breech of what the GPL stands for and
> should be fought out in the court. But these hypothetical cases do not
> IMHO justify any draconian viri like measures. If this were the case I
> would side with M$ and condem the altered GPL because it is just _too_
> unclear where the line is drawn. Making these changes may illimenate a
> theoretical loophole, but will also damage free software. There is yet
> to be (as far as I know) a single instance of this problem.
See above, it's not too far off from what happened.
Quote:> Further to
> that, companies who are "found out" for doing these will be condemed
> almost unaimously by the community and other companuies. These social
> pressures should not be underestimated.
It's *legal*, and GPL-PR hardly ever has something to do with purchase
desicion of the consumer.
Quote:> So let me end this interesting thread with a question : what is the real
> difference between exposing a corba API for example, with some function
> call that happens to process data, or using a non GPL web-broswer to
> connect to a GPL web server that uses a GPL database to return the data
> to the client ?
This is more clearer, the web browser uses a well-defined interface that
isn't GPL (namely, HTTP), it doesn't rely on GPL to do its stuff.
An application using a CORBA component is relying on this component to do
some of its work
[Snip a long expalantion that didn't really explain anything]
I *know* that the difference is there, I just can't quite express it in
Quote:> I would suggest that there is no conceptual difference.
> Both cases use a protocol, both cases use the network and both cases use
> a GPL "component" to process a request and return data. Therefore I find
> it hard to see where the line in the sand is drawn and where this line
> of reasoning becomes unreasonable for us programmers to have to worry
You are right, I can't think of anyway to express this that wouldn't be
Quote:> For this very reason there is much merit in the BSD license as at
> least it is clear what "free" means.
To qoute Theo:
"[BSD licensed software] must be free to all (be they people or companies),
for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on,
or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be
dropped on Australia."
Quote:> While I very much admire the GPL
> and the thinking behind it, I do worry that the FSF are sometimes too
> fundamentalist for their own good and actually place restrictions on
> their own code which may not be in the interestd of the very people the
> GPL was formed to protect. So, I hope that the FSF tread carefully and
> take the wider picture into account for the greater good and don't
> prevent networked objects from falling into the GPL aggregation term.
I think I'll email them and ask them about it, would be interesting to learn
what their reply would be.
I think what is need is something like the GPL, that doesn't spread to other
code. (No, LGPL isn't quite it)