linuxaudio.org

Arnold Krille wrote:

quoted text
> Hi,

>

> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 21:23:20 Sampo Savolainen wrote:

>

>> I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my

>> proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A

>> violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non

>> GPL) software.

>> Comments?

>>

>

> As far as I know this is right. Because GPL is a license (thats what the L

> stands for:), not an end-user agreement. All the GPL talks about is

> (re-)publishing. So as long as you do not re-distribute your app (outside your

> home/business) no one knows and cares.

>

> And I always wonder how Trolltech would enforce people to not use the GPL-

> version to start development and only buy a commercial license shortly before

> publishing ones own app for money. They actually can't because the sources of

> your app (should) not leave your home/business before that, so they wouldn't

> know...

>

> Arnold

You can skip 1., 2.1 and 2.2 and directly read 3. ;).
1.
If somebody has got a website made with Drupal (GPL) and he wants

visitors of the side to install the proprietary flash player to use the

web site, this won't be a problem. But will it be a violation, if

somebody publishes a web site done with GPL software and proprietary

software? Doing this isn't a distribution of the software. Doing this

has nothing to do with with reprogramming the software, but even if

somebody publishes a website done with reprogrammed GPL software, it's

not publishing the reprogrammed software.
GPL has nothing to do with just using software.
2.1
I download your GPL software and only change the copyright, I claim that

I'm the original coder and in addition I add comments that you are liar,

you have stolen my software. I copy this software with the faked

copyright to 100 DVDs, but I keep this copies my own.
This isn't a violation of the GPL.
2.2
I take those copies with me, while I'm using the short distance public

transport and I forget them in a bus, without purpose, some people take

a copy and install it to their desktop computers.
This might be a violation, but the whole situation is grotesquely.
3.
E.g. Cinelerra
I guess this is software that links to Non-GPL software.
"64 Studio cannot include it as part of the distribution because it has

too many patent encumbered dependencies. But not to worry, if you

install it yourself from other sources it is yours to use as you please!

And this is that story..." (http://www.64studio.com/howto_cinelerra)
 From the file COPYING by "git clone

git://git.cinelerra.org/j6t/cinelerra.git my_cinelerra":
"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

               Version 2, June 1991"
 From the file LICENSE by "git clone

git://git.cinelerra.org/j6t/cinelerra.git my_cinelerra":
"In addition to the GPL's warranty stipulation, Cinelerra is distributed

WITHOUT

GUARANTEED SUPPORT; without even the guarantee of ADDITIONAL LABOR. Support

that is not guaranteed includes technical support, compiler troubleshooting,

debugging, version matching, updating, among other additional labor which

may or may not be required to meet a user's requirements.
                GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

               Version 2, June 1991
 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

                       59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA

02111-1307  USA

 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies

 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev