I don't get it... Let's say I write (from scratch) some plugin for Photoshop. I couldn't release it as GPL ?

Hopefully I decided to stay away from this "licence" soon enough...

Leo.

Quote:

I don't know the details of that case, but as far as I can tell you, even in the worst case, in which my friends, the fsf guy and I were wrong, the one who should have problems, is not the author of the commercially licensed product, it should be, the author of the GPL plugin.

We all know the way some GPL-minded people think, and how far their destructive intentions come, so perhaps, all the problems the frogger guy is having, are just GPL-guys deliriums... the problem, is that they are a lot, and speak very loud ;).

If *you* write some software, on your own, without using any other sources, then *you* decide exactly what the license will be. If you say it can be used with Photoshop, then so it is.

However, GPL plugins can't be used with Photoshop. So if you say that it is GPL, and at the same time you say that it can be used with Photoshop, some people may be confused as to what you're really trying to say here. But since it should be quite clear that you want it to be used with Photoshop, the only reasonable interpretation is that you mean that it is GPL with the exception that you allow use with the non-GPL Photoshop.

Quote:

Then everyone and your FSF guy (boo, he should know better!) are quite wrong...


- CISC

Quote:
I don't "say", I wonder...

Let's say (it's not the case, this is just an example) I have developped from scratch a plugin for Photoshop. If I have understood correctly, I cannot release it as GPL ? (in a legal way I mean).

What I had understood, is that GPL had an influence on what LIBS (either static, or link-lib, blabla...) you could use. But when I talk of this plugin, what does it have to do with it ?

"FreeSoftwareFoundation" - seems like it isn't free as "freedom"...

Leo.

[ Edited by Leo on 2006/10/8 20:50 ]

It wouldn't be *illegal* to try and release it as GPL. But it would be *illogical*, nonsensical, inconsistent. One might also say that it would be impossible (because doing so, it would not really be GPL).

It's like bundling it with a license saying: "To use this software you have to pay 10 EUR per copy."
And then you offer free downloads on your webpage.

The GPL says you can't use the product with Photoshop. When you "release something as GPL", this is actually just you borrowing the GPL license and applying it to your product. If you want to make some changes or exceptions then that is fine, but then it is not really "GPL" anymore, but, say, "LeoPL" or "modified GPL".


Again: The GPL has no magical properties. It is just an example of a contract. The success of the GPL is that it has become a "standard contract" used by many people. The advantage of that is that if you read the GPL once, you don't have to read the fine print of every GPL product. The disadvantage is that some people may use it without really knowing what they are doing.


Also, note that some people question the GPL from another angle. They claim that it may not hold up in court if tested, or similar. First, this doesn't seem to be true, the GPL has been found valid in several countries (and to my knowledge, it has never been found to be invalid). Generally, courts take contracts (and thus licenses) very seriously. If you enter a contract of your own free will, courts will not listen much to later complaints that it is "unreasonable" or "silly" or whatever. There may be exceptions, in particular for consumers, when it may not be clear that someone is entering a contract.

But relying on such arguments is very dangerous, and likely to get you in trouble especially if you would end up making money with your project at some point in time. It may be argued that hobby projects are unlikely to end up in court, which is no doubt true, but on the other hand hobby projects are more reliant on people being cooperative, so it's probably a bad idea to screw people over just because they "hopefully" won't bother taking you to court.

Quote:

What about GPL MUI programs (like YAM) which use non-GPL compatible MUI which (at least in AOS) is not part of the OS, either?

Quote:

Ok, I think we all got here, and this needs some explanation. Here is the text pasted:

Quote:

As the first sentence sais: It depends on how the program invokes plugins, and as far as this... "license" only seems to contemplate linux as programming platform, it should be checked if other programming models are fittable.

The old-well-known "use-a-port" technique, might be useful here, as well as some pattern techniques.
The GPL license sais it must share data structures to be ilegal.

I think, we should check this, because as I see it, it doesn't fit well to the vage statements (and we should check too if those statements are legal) the GPL proposes...

Quote:

It all depends on the country. In Spain for example, adhesion contracts are not legally-valid. You can sign whatever contract you want, but you have the right to discuse all the clauses one by one with the entity you have signed untill satisfied. If this is not possible like this case, the contract could be not valid against a judge.

Perhaps the solution is to release the GPL plugins in Spain ;).

Of course you can "discuss" all the clauses in the GPL, but if you do not "sign" them (all) then you are not allowed to use the GPL code, unless (all) the authors give express permission to do so. Just turn it around: certainly the authors have the right not to agree, if they are not happy with all of *your* suggested clauses.

So, no, Spain is no solution.


As for the plug-ins, I think we were all talking about an embedded flash player. This needs to link with the main application because otherwise it cannot embed the flash contents. Yes, it would be possible to play the flash externally, but this would perhaps not be so useful.

Perhaps we could argue that we could play it in overlay mode, and the browser could display the overlay area. I don't know if this might possibly work out for pages with one flash gadget. At any rate it wouldn't help us when the flash anim in turn activates other (non-flash) contents.


With regards to MUI on AmigaOS, I don't know. On MorphOS there are certainly no problems. I guess the author can reasonably argue that he/she is writing a MorphOS application, even if it is in fact a 68k application, perhaps because he/she prefers coding in 68k. In that case the program would of course also work on AmigaOS with MUI, as long as no MOS-specific things are used. Note that this is not the same as the "dummy app" example below, because MOS can't be considered a "dummy", it is clearly a serious project and writing MOS apps is demonstrably something many people do.

You are right. I was just testing your knowledge ;). Nah, just a joke... Let's think for a b-Plan ;).

Hi !

$1260 donated for KHTML bounty on october 17 !!

Grts, Amigaharry

@amigaharry

You are crazy...! :-)

@ amigaharry

Quote:

Thank you (also on behalf of Targhan). That is very generous.

Wow, I think it's time to finally prepare some public release then

Quote:

There's nothing bad with that. Some people make money this way: by taking GPL code, setting up a dev environment, compiling it, linking to other libraries, providing support and so on.

There seems to be confusion in most articles and posts that I read that "GPL software is free". This is not true, the source is free, hence the term "open source". *

So in fact, your "crazy" suggestion is actually a valid, workable and legal business model.

cheers

koan

*
Free Software Foundation Essay on selling free software

@amigaharry

WOW :)

The only problem, is that anyone else, can get your source code, build it, and offer a build for free... so you will only get money for the first time... The only valid commercial strategy I see on that, is offering your product at 1 million dollars, so you can get money from you first-and-only sell.

And yes... Sputnik's license, should state amigaharry would have a lifetime-subscription to sputnik, and any update or whatever :P... $1200 is quite a lot of money!

@amigaharry

Wow you must be a real fanatic or have a lot of money...I guess it is people like you that is holding the community at life...

and yes he should have a life time subscription

Quote:

I nominate AmigaHarry as the honorary member of MZ for november.

Quote:

Hmm, may I ask what life time subscription? It was already clarified that Sputnik will be free for MorphOS.

koan: You don't read properly what I wrote. I am not talking about selling GPL software. Of course you can do that. But what I described would be to say in one place that something is free, and in another place that it costs money. You can do it, it's not illegal, but it only serves to confuse the people reading it.

And I'm as impressed as everyone else by Amigaharry, of course. :)

I'm for a photo of amigaharry right next to the genesi-logo at the top :)

Quote:

Damn...in hounor text...

But the photo idea seams fun to.

edit: bless? well it should be a D word....

[ Edited by robjoh on 2006/10/18 7:02 ]