GPL and closed source

[Dale]

>>1.if you are the copyright holder of the GPL code then you can do that
>>It does not matter whetehr the work is GPL or not; if I am the owner /
>>creator, I can do just as I please with it. I am surprised that this
>>statement was made at all.

I am the owner/creator of the GPL code not of the closed source dll.does it
make a difference?


On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Mahesh T. Pai <paivakil at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dale said on Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:04:08AM +0300,:
>
>  >    Hi
>  >    Can GPLv3 code access functions (with dynamic/runtime linking) of a
> closed
>  >    source .dll (not operating system .dll but an applications' library)
> which
>  >    exposes an API ? Keep in mind that the dll although closed source is
> free
>  >    for use
>
> So, you have A.exe accessing functionality provided by B.dll.
>
> What makes you think that #2, GPL v3 does not apply??
>
> "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the
> unmodified Program."
>
>  >    1.if you are the copyright holder of the GPL code then you can do
> that
>
> It does not matter whetehr the work is GPL or not; if I am the owner /
> creator, I can do just as I please with it. I am surprised that this
> statement was made at all.
>
>  >    2.if you are the copyright holder of the GPL code then you can
>  >    do that provided that you add a clause to the GPL license that
>  >    your code can be linked against closed source APIs.Although I
>  >    find that this mostly should concern 3rd party developers who
>  >    want to use your GPL code and link it against closed source APIs
>
> I will rephrase that in slightly lesser words:- "I, as the creator /
> owner of the copyrighted work need to grant myself permission to use
> it."
>
> I hope I got that I got it correct; if so, I am speechless.
>
>  >    3.If you GPL code uses dynamic/runtime linking rather than
> static,then it
>  >    is ok
>
> If GPL code uses static linking of non-GPL work, you have violated
> license terms of the non-GPLed work. (I am assuming the "non-GPLed
> work" here is closed source, non-modifiable, work).
>
>  >    4.If your GPL code accesses another non-GPL but open source library
> and
>  >    this library calls the closed source API then your GPL code uses an
>  >    intermediate interface which acts as the communication bridge between
> them
>  >    thus does not access the closed source directly,which is ok.I see
> some
>  >    people describe that as a 'shim'
>
> Why is this shim shim required?
>
> If the non-free API is in legitimate possession of the user, the GPL
> code does not impose any burden on the user. AFAICT, AFAIK.
>
> I have seen shims in use, but that is mostly to overcome
> _distribution_ and/or packaging limitations.
>
>  >    So if the GPL code cannot access the .dll directly,can it through
> those
>
> If the GPL'ed code cannot access another library, the only reason
> would be technical, not legal or license, IMHO.
>
>  >    libraries?
>  >    GPL code <----> non-GPL but (GPL compatible) open source library
> <---->
>  >    closed source. dll
>  >
>
>
>  >    It looks like that GPL is too restricive in a sense
>
> In what sense?
>
> GPL does NOT restrict how you use code covered by the GPL. And, IMHO,
> "use" in the GPL's sense includes access of other programs.
>
> Of course, when things work in other direction, GPL kicks in, and that
> is why some people prefer to call GPL a "viral" license.
>
> I am no longer a lawyer though; and TINLA.
>
>
> --
> Mahesh T. Pai   ||
> TRUTH,  n.   An   ingenious  compound  of  desirability  and
>  appearance.   Discovery of  truth is  the sole  purpose of
>  philosophy, which  is the  most ancient occupation  of the
>  human  mind  and has  a  fair  prospect  of existing  with
>  increasing activity to the end of time.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20110603/728079a0/attachment.html>