users-prolog
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Users-prolog Digest, Vol 85, Issue 4


From: Alexander Wolfe
Subject: Re: Users-prolog Digest, Vol 85, Issue 4
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:10:42 -0700

Thanks for the help guys. It makes more sense to me now.

-Alex

On Jul 13, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:00:43 -0400
> address@hidden wrote:
> 
>> Send Users-prolog mailing list submissions to
>>      address@hidden
>> 
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>      http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>      address@hidden
>> 
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>      address@hidden
>> 
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Users-prolog digest..."
>> 
>> 
>> Today's Topics:
>> 
>>   1. License questions (Alexander Wolfe)
>>   2. Re: License questions (Daniel Savard)
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:42:50 -0700
>> From: Alexander Wolfe <address@hidden>
>> Subject: License questions
>> To: address@hidden
>> Message-ID:
>>      <address@hidden>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>> 
>> I have a couple of questions about the use of gprolog compiled programs. I
>> understand that gprolog is GPL software and that any modified version of its
>> codebase would be required to be released under a GPL compatible license.
>> What about programs compiled with gprolog? I know that gcc does not restrict
>> compiled programs to the GPL. What is the case here?
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> -Alex
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: 
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/users-prolog/attachments/20100712/29c38652/attachment.html
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:21:54 -0400
>> From: Daniel Savard <address@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: License questions
>> To: address@hidden
>> Message-ID:
>>      <address@hidden>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> 
>> 2010/7/12 Alexander Wolfe <address@hidden>:
>>> I have a couple of questions about the use of gprolog compiled programs. I
>>> understand that gprolog is GPL software and that any modified version of its
>>> codebase would be required to be released under a GPL compatible license.
>>> What about programs compiled with gprolog? I know that gcc does not restrict
>>> compiled programs to the GPL. What is the case here?
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The answer is obvious, same license same terms. A license cannot
>> pretend to acquire rights on the original work of others. The idea of
>> a license is to protect something and in this case, the GNU-Prolog
>> compiler.
>> 
>> I know there is some copyrights and intellectual property lawyers
>> which are dessiminating the idea the GPL license extend to everything
>> developped using OSS. But they are wrong. There is plenty of examples
>> they are.
>> 
>> BTW, I am not a lawyer, so, if this is a very sensitive question for
>> you, ask one or more than one, but pick a good one.
>> 
> 
> Nor am I, but at the end of the COPYING file in the source install of Gprolog
> you will find the following:
> "
> This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
> proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you may
> consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
> library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General 
> Public License instead of this License.
> "
> This is the LGPL loophole, allowing you to LINK your own code to
> the Gprolog Libraries without releasing your code under the GPL.  
> 
> So your development environment is under the main GPL and you 
> could not sell it without the full GPL viral recursion, but
> target/end use products are not so encumbered, given that 
> they are substantially different in function and purpose than
> Gprolog itself.
> 
> Dhu
> 
>> Regards,
>> -- 
>> -----------------
>> Daniel Savard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users-prolog mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog
>> 
>> 
>> End of Users-prolog Digest, Vol 85, Issue 4
>> *******************************************




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]