Re: License questions (Users-prolog Digest, Vol 85, Issue 4)

[Daniel Diaz]

Hello everybody,

the next stable version (1.4.0) will be released under a dual license: 
GPL or LGPL.
This should simplify a lot the commercial use of applications written in 
GNU Prolog.

Daniel

PS: the current snapshot in the unstable directory is under LGPL but the 
final version will be under GPL or LGPL.
I'm integrating/polishing a port to Win 64 bits (thanks to Jasper 
Taylor) and then I will release it.


Le 20/01/2011 10:52, aLurchi a écrit :
> Hello everybody,
>
> > From what I understood Daniel and Duncan are saying: The resulting native
> executables are not limited by the GPL...
>
> "copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people
> make from their data using your program. If the user uses your program to
> enter or convert his own data, the copyright on the output belongs to him,
> not you. More generally, when a program translates its input into some other
> form, the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was
> generated from.
>
> So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if substantial
> parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in your program. For
> instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be covered by the
> GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this specific case." (source:
> www.gnu.org)
>
> So I guess the question is pretty much: Do stand-alone executables created
> with GNU-Prolog contain GPL-covered parts?
> If not the resulting executables should not be coverd by the GPL and thus be
> open for commercial/unfree use.
>
> Any thoughts on that?
>
> Nils
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Daniel Diaz-3 wrote:
> > Hello everybody;
> >
> > Daniel (Savard) and Duncan are right: the resulting native executable
> > is limited by the GPL license.
> >
> > To simplify user's life, the next stable version of gprolog should be
> > fully released under the LGPL license (
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html ).
> >
> > You can find the current (unstable) snapshot of 1.4.0 at:
> >
> > http://gprolog.univ-paris1.fr/unstable/gprolog-20100713.tgz
> >
> > I plan to release the stable version 1.4.0 in September or October.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > Alexander Wolfe aécrit :
> >
> >    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
> > *******************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Users-prolog mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Users-prolog mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog


--
Ce message a ete verifie par MailScanner
pour des virus ou des polluriels et rien de
suspect n'a ete trouve.