[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Tuesday 26 August 2008, Peter Wang wrote:
> On 2008-08-26, Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Ok, I'll buy that. but what about people then using Allegro? They then
> > have to adopt a gpl license, which isn't something we currently force.
> > The GPL crosses library/app boundaries.
>
> You mean, if we simply support an OSS backend, programs which use
> Allegro would need to be covered under a GPL-compatible licence?
>
> I don't think so. First, assume we don't distribute the OSS header
> file. We won't. Second, Elias pointed out that targeting the OSS API
> won't impose any additional restrictions. So in this case, it's clear.
>
>
> But let's imagine it wasn't so clear. Let library Foo target an
> interface BarInt, with multiple implementations BarBSD, BarGPL,
> BarProprietary. The Foo source does not copy any code from Bar*.
> But the Foo binary *might* be built from BarGPL header files, if the
> user wishes. In that case, linking with the Foo binary would
> require GPL compliance -- call that binary FooGPL. If you distribute
> FooGPL you must make the source of Foo available.
>
> Now a program Quux comes along and targets Foo. Does the fact that that
> Quux *might* link with FooGPL *automatically* require Quux to be GPL
> compatible? That makes no sense.
>
> Consider if BarGPL didn't exist, only BarBSD and BarProprietary exist.
> A program Quux comes along and targets BarBSD and BarProprietary. Now
> someone forks BarBSD and creates BarGPL. Does that automatically make
> Quux and Foo derived from BarGPL? Clearly not.
>
> Now, this argument doesn't hold if only BarGPL exists. In that case,
> Foo must be derived from BarGPL, and therefore so is Quux.
>
> Anyhow, that's how I see it. IANAL.
If only... The GPL was purposefully made to infect any code that happens to
use it, even indirectly. Its supposed to forcefully keep the code free/open.
This is why the LGPL exists, to remove that issue for libraries.
>
> Back to OSS. The situation would be even clearer if we target OSS 3.
> OSS 3 header files are distributed with many operating systems. Section
> 3 of the GPL has a special exception for "anything that is normally
> distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components
> (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system".
OSS3 is dead.
> Peter
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's
> challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win
> great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere
> in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
--
Thomas Fjellstrom
tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx