4 ms·

committing .dll files along with the GPL license violates the license in any case, im sure that's not stopping anyone from doing it but it's frustrating to see

by zzzeek 5y ago

committing .dll files along with the GPL license violates the license in any case, im sure that's not stopping anyone from doing it but it's frustrating to see the GPL just dropped into repos as some kind of meaningless window dressing.

klodolph 5y ago
Committing .dll files does not violate the GPL. What would violate the GPL is distributing the compiled result.
- lokar 5y ago
  Unless you own to the copyright or otherwise have different licensing terms available to you.
oconnor663 5y ago
Are you sure this is literally true? My understanding of the GPL is that it requires you to publish source on request. It doesn't make it an automatic violation to publish, say, a binary-only installer package.
kadoban 5y ago
Assuming the author owns copyright on the code they're releasing, I'm not sure what that would mean, violating the license.
olalonde 5y ago
The copyright owner can of course violate their own license. I'm not sure how external contributions factor into that however. Maybe you could make the case that he is bound by his own license if he accepted external contributions which were implicitly licensed under it?
kcb 5y ago
That makes no sense
cbarrick 5y ago
The viral part of GPL only applies when code is statically linked against other GPL code. Anything statically linked to GPL code becomes GPL. However, distributing GPL code along side proprietary libraries that are dynamically linked together on the user's machine is allowed.
- remram 5y ago
  That is very much wrong and I wonder where you possibly got that from, since the text of the license is so easy to find and says: > For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require
- swiftcoder 5y ago
  You appear to be conflating the GPL with the LGPL. The GPL definitely has things to say about both static and dynamic linking.
- andi999 5y ago
  You are thinking if lgpl.
0x0 5y ago
Would anyone who installed the backdoored ImageGlass application be able to hit up the author with a GPL request for the backdoor spider dlls? They seem to be binary-only, probably from that spider dot com backdoor SDK. Would it get the ImageGlass author in hot water?
vegetablepotpie 5y ago
What the developer should do in this case, if the dlls are not GPL compatible, and they’re not “system libraries”, is specifically enumerate through them in his license. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLib...

by zzzeek 5y ago

klodolph 5y ago

Committing .dll files does not violate the GPL. What would violate the GPL is distributing the compiled result.

lokar 5y ago
Unless you own to the copyright or otherwise have different licensing terms available to you.

oconnor663 5y ago

Are you sure this is literally true? My understanding of the GPL is that it requires you to publish source on request. It doesn't make it an automatic violation to publish, say, a binary-only installer package.

kadoban 5y ago

Assuming the author owns copyright on the code they're releasing, I'm not sure what that would mean, violating the license.

olalonde 5y ago

The copyright owner can of course violate their own license. I'm not sure how external contributions factor into that however. Maybe you could make the case that he is bound by his own license if he accepted external contributions which were implicitly licensed under it?

kcb 5y ago

That makes no sense

cbarrick 5y ago

The viral part of GPL only applies when code is statically linked against other GPL code. Anything statically linked to GPL code becomes GPL. However, distributing GPL code along side proprietary libraries that are dynamically linked together on the user's machine is allowed.

remram 5y ago
That is very much wrong and I wonder where you possibly got that from, since the text of the license is so easy to find and says: > For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require
swiftcoder 5y ago
You appear to be conflating the GPL with the LGPL. The GPL definitely has things to say about both static and dynamic linking.
andi999 5y ago
You are thinking if lgpl.

0x0 5y ago

Would anyone who installed the backdoored ImageGlass application be able to hit up the author with a GPL request for the backdoor spider dlls? They seem to be binary-only, probably from that spider dot com backdoor SDK. Would it get the ImageGlass author in hot water?

vegetablepotpie 5y ago

What the developer should do in this case, if the dlls are not GPL compatible, and they’re not “system libraries”, is specifically enumerate through them in his license. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLib...