Re: embedded emc and GPL



Hi,

> Just FYI, it's pretty easy around this thing. If you take the code
> that's GPLd and wrap it in a thin layer, you can then call it as a
> library - the only source you need to make available is your thin layer,
> yawn.

This definitely isn't true. First, if you take GPLd code and wrap it in a
library, the wrapper will be GPLd, too. And if you call this wrapper, the
calling program is automatically GPLd. This is the reason, why there is the
LGPL (library GPL or "lesser" GPL license) f.e. the GNU libc is LPGLd, that
trys to avoid the above scenario. There has been some discussion on the net
about how one may (or may not) get around this, for example, using dynamic
linking or allowing the GPLd software as an "optional" feature (so the
program works without it), but it is not clear, what would happen, if a
court had to decide. So, using GPL in a commercial project means at least
moving on very uncertain terrain.


Markus


>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: emc-at-nist.gov [emc-at-nist.gov] On Behalf Of Markus Meyer
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 6:38 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: embedded emc and GPL
>
>
>
> Hi Paul
>
> > The GPL license does not in any way restrict a commercial use of GPL'd
> > software. If you read the terms, it quite clearly states that you
> > are free to
> > modify and redistribute any derived works for any fee - As long
> > as you give
> > the customer access to the source code. The one thing you may not
> > do is claim
> > copyright or change the terms of the license.
>
> Of course you are right, but it is a known fact, that many commercial
> developers avoid GPL'd software, because it forces one to make your
> whole
> sorce code publicy available (aka "virus effect"). This indeed _is_ a
> restriction: As most commercial software is (still) closed-sourced,
> GPL'd
> stuff cannot be used for most commercial software. For example, we are a
> small software company, developing CAM systems and frontends for
> CNC-like
> machines. We use some programming techniques and algorithms that make
> our
> software superior to our competitors in this special market segment. I
> see
> no problem with giving source code to our customers (but mostly, they
> are
> not interested in getting source code, as long as the program works as
> expected, and they don't have programmers anyway), but making the source
> publicy available would only lead to our competitors downloading the
> thing
> and sell it theirselves. So (unfortunately) closed-source software is
> the
> key for us to survive in this small market (unless we grow as big as SUN
> or
> IBM maybe). Also, as our source code often reflects informations about
> the
> internal processes the customer is using, the customer himself often
> forces
> us to sign non-disclosure agreements and the like which would not comply
> with the public nature of GPLed software.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Markus
>
>
>
>
>
>




Date Index | Thread Index | Back to archive index | Back to Mailing List Page

Problems or questions? Contact