Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: musikCube licensing (Read 12035 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

musikCube licensing

Reply #25 –
Quote from: TrNSZ on
The MySQL case was caused by non-GPL code being loaded into a GPL application.  I see no reason why the FSF would not be able to enforce the case of GPL code being loaded into a non-GPL application.

Who do you sue?

-Let's say that Adam writes some closed software. He makes it work with plugins. He also writes a basic interface for plugin authors to write code with. For giggles, let's say he makes that interface public domain.
-Now, Bob has written some GPL'd code to do something cool.
-Carl comes along, takes Bob's code and combines it with the public domain interface into a wrapper or sorts. He distributes this whole thing, standalone, along with the code.

Trick question: Who violated the GPL?
-Adam couldn't have possibly done it. He didn't use any GPL'd code at all.
-Bob wrote all his code himself.
-Carl used Bob's code and other public domain code. But his release included all the code as well. He didn't distribute *any* non-free code. He abided by everything in the GPL.

There's nobody to sue in such a case. Carl's code derives from both Adam's and Bob's, and he has permission to use both pieces of code. He has permission to use Adam's code because Adam made the code public domain. He has permission to use Bob's code because he abided by the GPL, word for word.

Bob has no case.

But none of this matters in the musikCube case, BTW. musikCube is ModBSD, FAAD is GPL. They're perfectly compatible.

Quote from: TrNSZ on
This is correct as well, but woudln't that also make the software lose quite alot of it's appeal and functionality at this point?  Do you have a particular purpose for not using the GPL for your software?

I don't use the GPL because I think the GPL sucks ass. But then that's just me, personally. I release all my free code under a Modified BSD because I want my code to really be free, not to be encumbered by the GPL and its insanity. Whether or not other people use it in open or closed source apps, I don't much care. If they really want to make it non-free, then I figure that they can deal with the work it will take to do so.

But musikCube is copyrighted by Casey, not me. Why he used ModBSD, I cannot say.

musikCube licensing

Reply #26 –
[deleted]

musikCube licensing

Reply #27 –
Quote from: TrNSZ on
As stated, the FAAD2/BASS interaction was explictly permitted.  If menno could clarify the situation to extend the agreement to explicitly cover all software that uses/includes FAAD2 via BASS, I think this would essentially solve the problem, would it not?

As far as mC is concerned, there is no problem. My core_m4a plugin also uses FAAD2 directly, not just through BASS. I think we can admit consensus.

Quote from: TrNSZ on
Even if you are not violating the GPL yourself, end users might be.  While most people don't give a damn about licensing, a simple clarification of these issues would clear up all possible future issues.

I agree that clarification is needed. But, end users cannot possibly violate the GPL, the GPL does not cover end use of a program. It covers modification and distribution/copying of a program. Use of a program is intentionally omitted from the GPL.

musikCube licensing

Reply #28 –
[deleted]

musikCube licensing

Reply #29 –
Quote from: TrNSZ on
If an end-users combining plugins could be considered to be creating a derivitive work, they are.  This is interpretation that the FSF can make, but can only be enforced by a court.

This is the crap that makes the GPL suck.  As an end-user, I enjoy staying out of court.


I'm under the impression that you are allowed to do such things for private use but you aren't allowed to distribute the resulting program by any means.

musikCube licensing

Reply #30 –
Quote from: Latexxx on
I'm under the impression that you are allowed to do such things for private use but you aren't allowed to distribute the resulting program by any means.

True. Modification falls under section 2, and section 2b only requires you to relicense the work under the GPL if you "distribute or publish" it.

musikCube licensing

Reply #31 –
Quote from: Otto42 on
True. Modification falls under section 2, and section 2b only requires you to relicense the work under the GPL if you "distribute or publish" it.
Section 2 is not particularly clear on whether the three subsections (a, b and c) only apply to distribution or to modification too. As I read the text, it could be fairly interpreted either way. You guys make a very good point - while the FSF are extremely clear cut on this issue, the license itself is much hazier. I wonder which way a court would rule?
 

musikCube licensing

Reply #32 –
If the license's not explicit on end-user behavior, despite whatever FSF says, go with your heart. In my case, that means, I'll create derivative work anytime I want.

I do not intend to lose in court. I'll countersue if FSF dare to sue me. And make the case as public as possible. Then I can settle for a nice out-of-court settlement of... oh, let's say, one million goobers