Just a comment, I don't suspect this is a disagreement, but may but useful to other readers' understanding. While it would appear to be a GPL violation not to provide source code for users of the HiCalc program if it is licenses under GPL (and given your facts, there would seem to be no alternative to doing so), PPCLINK Software can charge a registration fee for the application binary itself without violating the terms of GPL.
I have pointed that out to them.
They have actually responded now on the gsl-help mailing list. It is
clear they were not aware of their obligations since the binary makes is
clear they are using the GNU Scientific Llibrary. They have not tried to
hide that fact.
Quote:
From what I've read and heard, most GPL violations are resolved without judicial intervention. Often a company is simply unaware of the terms of the GPL or confused about their obligations under it, and once properly informed they either stop distributing or comply with the terms.
I don't think "stop distributing" is an option. The fact is the
copyright infringement has already occurred and must be corrected.
Quote:
A specific Web site for an organization that deals with these "enforcement" issues is here: http://gpl-violations.org/
I tried emailing them about the breach but the mail bounced. I'll try
again.
--
Dave K MCSE.
MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.
Just a comment, I don't suspect this is a disagreement, but may but useful to other readers' understanding. While it would appear to be a GPL violation not to provide source code for users of the HiCalc program if it is licenses under GPL (and given your facts, there would seem to be no alternative to doing so), PPCLINK Software can charge a registration fee for the application binary itself without violating the terms of GPL.
I have pointed that out to them. They have actually responded now on the gsl-help mailing list. It is clear they were not aware of their obligations since the binary makes is clear they are using the GNU Scientific Llibrary. They have not tried to hide that fact.
Quote:
From what I've read and heard, most GPL violations are resolved without judicial intervention. Often a company is simply unaware of the terms of the GPL or confused about their obligations under it, and once properly informed they either stop distributing or comply with the terms.
I don't think "stop distributing" is an option. The fact is the copyright infringement has already occurred and must be corrected.
Quote:
A specific Web site for an organization that deals with these "enforcement" issues is here: http://gpl-violations.org/
Dave "from the UK" wrote:
Quote:
I tried emailing them about the breach but the mail bounced. I'll try again.
Well, the copyright holders for GSL are the Free
Software Foundation (FSF), and given that you've
posted something on the gsl-help mailing list, I
think you've done your duty.
It will be up to PPCLINK Software and the FSF to
work out arrangements for "curing" the license breach.
This is almost never pursued in a punitive spirit, as
often seems the case with "closed source" licenses.
Axel Vogt wrote: > A question to understand some part of the licence problem: > > If I write a program that uses GSL (or other software under > that licence) by calling it through the GSL runtime library > (say: its DLLs under Windows or similar), so the source code > is not used: > > Do I have to publish the (whole) new code or not? > > Even it is a bit off topic for that NG I would hear some > answers > > -- > "please use mail at ... instead of test3 at ... to send me a mail" Yes you must release the source. That is why the GNU Lesser General Public License http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html was created. It allows you to create a library and allow others to link their closed source software into. The GNU multi-precision library uses that license which allows Mathematica to use the library. But the GNU Scientific library is not released under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) but instead under the GNU General Public License (GPL).
For non-English non-Laywers the licence text is a bit heavy. Using it - even through a program - is not linking (and I have to use some operating system to use any part of GSL, but my Windows will never be published I suppose). At least I read: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. If I do not copy, distribute or modify then the licence does not apply - and running is not restricted. So far I think I can do whatever I want. But the test following then does contradicts the text before. I simply do not understand which part has to be applied (and a clause like "it depends" does not clear it ...). Is there a definite place to look for answers to such questions?
Yes, there is a definitive place to look and that is the text of the GPL. Perhaps these examples will help. Scenario 1: PPCLINK Software distributes (by download) an application (HiCalc). The application as downloaded includes the GNU Scientific Library in binary form, which is licensed under the GPL. The GPL terms allow PPCLINK Software to do this but only if they abide by the terms of the GPL, and these terms are to make the source code available to users of the (bundled) software by reasonable means and at a reasonable cost related to the cost of distribution. They must provide users of the program a notification of their right to receive the source code and instructions for how to get it if not already provided with the binary download. If PPCLINK Software does not agree to the terms of GPL license for GNU Scientific Library, then their distribution of it must stop. Scenario 2: Microsoft distributes (by retail and OEM installation) an operating system (Windows). Chip runs a GPL'd program (Octave) under Windows. Microsoft does not distribute the two programs together and is not bound by Chip's use of both programs to license Windows under the GPL. There is more information and the text of the GPL in various formats here: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html regards, chip
Thx for explaining! In that terms I would re-formulate:
Scenario 3: Program SuperMega with a DLL interface and
un-bundled with GSL. SuperMega gives aspecification for
the DLL interface, which is satisfied by gsl.dll, but
leaves it to the user to do so. Or without being to much
artificials just says: "user, you need GSL installed and
it sufficient to place gsl.dll in the system directory,
our program calls it from there (if you wish blablabla)".
The MyLounge.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not
be relied upon and is not a substitute for any advice. The information contained
on MyLounge.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation
of the opinions of MyLounge.com. MyLounge.com does not warrant or vouch for
the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications
of any person responding. Please consult a expert or seek the services of an
attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation. Please note
that our forums also serve as mirrors to Usenet newsgroups. Many posts you see
on our forums are made by newsgroup users who may not be members of MyLounge.com
Term of Service
Scientific calculator - clear breach of GPL
Linear Mode
