nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (12/20/89)
In article <8912201209.AA03583@wheat-chex> tower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:
no, if you use the getopt package, you don't have to post your
sources. if you change getopt and redistribute it, then you do.
--
Rodney
Wrong. If your program requires GNU source to be linked in, it's all
covered by the GPL.
thanx -len
That is correct, but it may be misleading. If you don't use any of the
advanced features of GNU's getopt such that it can be linked to any getopt,
then it's not covered by the GPL. Same goes for the C libraries.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.
A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.
I think killing is value-neutral in and of itself. -- Gary Strand, 8 Nov 1989.
Liberals run this country, by and large. -- Clayton Cramer, 20 Nov 1989.
Shut up and mind your Canadian business, you meddlesome foreigner. -- TK, 23 N.sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) (12/21/89)
> Wrong. If your program requires GNU source to be linked in, it's all > covered by the GPL. > >If you don't use any of the advanced features of GNU's getopt such >that it can be linked to any getopt, then it's not covered by the GPL. But *is* covered if it *does* use features specific to GNU getopt? Can you (or anyone) cite references (announcements by FSF, whatever) on this? Specifically: is FSF claming that they have created programming interfaces that are their (dare I say it) intellectual property? Do programs that use, say, libg++-specific constructs not available in other C++ libraries, fall under the GPL even if distributed without any material covered by the GPL? How about perl scripts? It would be nice if a representative of FSF could give an official answer to this. ++sja
rodney@picasso.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (12/21/89)
>>>>> On 20 Dec 89 16:59:17 GMT, sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) said:
Tower> Wrong. If your program requires GNU source to be linked in, it's all
Tower> covered by the GPL.
Russ>If you don't use any of the advanced features of GNU's getopt such
Russ>that it can be linked to any getopt, then it's not covered by the GPL.
That's what I was tryingf to say. Just because you use the code in your
own program doesn't mean you _have_ to give them that piece of code. You
could just as well remove the gnu getopt and write your own that mimics the
functionality. You should be very careful to not read and copy the work
done by the FSF however.
Personally, I think this is sort of left handed and opportunistic and I
wouldn't do it, but that's me.
Sakari> But *is* covered if it *does* use features specific to GNU getopt?
No, that's part of the point. You can write code that performs the same
actions if you want to. It's essentially up to you to do the work.
But, obviously, I've been wrong before -- read the Manifesto and find out
if code with a similar programming interface automatically falls under the
copyleft.
--
Rodneylwall@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Larry Wall) (12/28/89)
In article <SJA.89Dec20185917@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes:
: Do programs that use, say, libg++-specific constructs not available in
: other C++ libraries, fall under the GPL even if distributed without
: any material covered by the GPL? How about perl scripts?
Perl scripts are absolutely NOT covered by the GPL. You own any that you
write, and can do with them what you please. Only the perl source code
is under the GPL. And I'm not too worried about someone cloning the
"look and feel" of perl. Who'd want to? If you get in trouble for cloning
someone's perl SCRIPT, that's between you and them. Keep me out of it.
Yes, I supply some scripts within the perl package. But you'll notice
they're in a subdirectory called "eg". They're meant to be emulated,
and the README file in that directory says so explicitly.
I'm not picky about that sort of stuff. Scripts are at the noise level.
Further, since I own the copyright on perl, I can give you a piece of
perl source code with a different copyright if I so choose, so it is not
out of the question that a piece of perl source code could end up in
a proprietary product if someone asked nicely and I wasn't feeling cross
that day.
If I had the slightest doubts about the GPL restricting the use of the perl
language, I wouldn't have put perl under it. And if you have doubts
about my intentions to make perl as useful as possible, you don't know me.
Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov