3 ms·
"I've found three ways to combine any proprietary work with GPL and other Free Software, without a need to give away any source code, even when the Free part is
by pfedor 18y ago
"I've found three ways to combine any proprietary work with GPL and other Free Software, without a need to give away any source code, even when the Free part is under the new and most rigorous GPL3 license."
What on Earth is he talking about? I this was true, wouldn't it be completely subverting all the copyleft licenses? This is dropped completely as a side-thought, but isn't it rather disquieting and completely against everything else he stands for in this article? Have I misunderstood something?
- jerf 18y agoI don't know what these "three ways" are, but the GPL in general will not cross a process boundary. As long as you talk to it cross-process, you're safe from the point of view of combining code. You're even "safer" if you're talking across servers. (Scare quoted because you're basically 100% safe either way.) Other clauses may need to be respected as well but they tend not to be onerous. Obviously, with sufficient effort, you can do anything across a process boundary, it's just inconvenient, and you have to at least share all the changes you made on the GPL side.
- bengtan 18y agoI think he was talking about http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/11/43198 http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/11/43198 where the three ways are: Separate CPU, Kernel under a kernel, and User Mode More applicable to appliances and embedded software, than application software in general.