RE: embedded emc and GPL

["Mike Partain" <srs-at-megapipe.net>]

I don't believe that, nor do any of the paid attorneys I've spoken to
believe it. If I call someone else's GPL library then sure, they can
force the wrapper to be GPL. If I in turn call my own GPL wrapper - the
only one who has legal standing is me, and I don't plan on suing myself.
Yes the wrapper is GPL'd, that's the point - but the wrapper doesn't
have any of my commercial product in it.
Man, imagine if Microsoft declared all software using visual c runtime
had to divulge the source - I'm sure the GPL community would rally
behind that effort.

What difference would a dynamic link make? That sounds pretty weak.

I'm not really interested in debating it, I've already paid for legal
advice and I'd be dumb to ignore it. (Plus EMC is Public Domain so it's
moot to this group) Has GPL ever made it to court? I'm unaware of any
cases.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: emc-at-nist.gov [emc-at-nist.gov] On Behalf Of Markus Meyer
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:53 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: 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
>
>
>
>
>
>