5 ms·

GPL3 is restricted to the boundaries of the executable so he would just have to give access to the grep source code if/when requested. End of story.

by zimbatm 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- kstrauser 14y ago
  That's a unique interpretation of the GPL shared by no one else I've ever talked to.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    There are some guys at Microsoft that would probably want people to interpret the GPL in the scariest way possible. I've met many during my career.
- cjbprime 14y ago
  Untrue. > By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
  - callahad 14y ago
    For even greater emphasis: the FSF has a vested interest in promoting a maximally broad interpretation of the GPL. It's not legal advice, but when even their own FAQ says you're in the clear, you're likely to be pretty damn "safe."
    - pjscott 14y ago
      The FSF wants the GPL to be a license that people will actually use, and within that constraint, they want it to be interpreted in a way that most strictly protects software freedom, as they see it. If they just wanted it to be as broad as possible, they would be shooting themselves in the feet; it's easy for ticked-off software creators to switch to a less restrictive license if they own the copyright to software under the GPL. This, for example, is why the FSF always mentions explicitly that they do not consider merely using a tool like grep as part of a shell script to be a derived work. They have to be reasonable, or they lose their power.
  - vlasta2 14y ago
    Agree, but I think the GPL examples about communication mechanisms are pretty weird and sometimes absurd. Consider this scenario: Someone takes a GIMP plug-in licensed under GPL and converts it to a Photoshop plug-in (which is a DLL and shares memory space with Photoshop). According to GPL, Photoshop would now have to be open-sourced, but the person, who converted the plug-in does not have access to Photoshop source code. What now? Goes GPL actually forbids the existence of this? What if the converted plug-in with the source code is published? Is that actually illegal? What if they only publish the adapted source code and not the binary? What if a third person compiles it and publishes the binary? Who would be the guilty party?
    - flomo 14y ago
      I've followed GPL discussions from the sidelines for sometime, and whenever someone comes up with a 'trick' scenario like this, the standard advice is "if you'd like to do that, call your lawyer". (The legal definition of 'derived works' is based in case law and is more complex than what you'd find in a FSF FAQ.)
    - aidenn0 14y ago
      IANAL, but: Distributing a photoshop plugin containing GPL code is a violation of the GPL as it is worded. If that part of the GPL is enforcable (no precedent that I am aware of) then you would essentially be pirating the GPL code, and can be sued for monetary damages by the owner of the copyright for that code.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > Distributing a photoshop plugin containing GPL code is a violation of the GPL as it is worded. That would only be true if the distributor failed to provide the source code to any interested party who asked for it. If he met that requirement, and if he included all the original copyright notices in the source along with his own, there's no violation.
        aidenn0 14y ago
        The source code to photoshop?
- sigzero 14y ago
  There is no way on God's green Earth that you can say his product is a derived work of GNU grep because it is used in the way he describes. At the very least, they just have to provide the source for grep.
jlgreco 14y ago
Yeah, that is my thought too. Maybe he thinks including a call to grep that the users shell would read/fork/exec is a type of linking? Seems like a stretch.

GPL3 is restricted to the boundaries of the executable so he would just have to give access to the grep source code if/when requested. End of story.

by zimbatm 14y ago

GPL3 is restricted to the boundaries of the executable so he would just have to give access to the grep source code if/when requested. End of story.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

kstrauser 14y ago
That's a unique interpretation of the GPL shared by no one else I've ever talked to.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  There are some guys at Microsoft that would probably want people to interpret the GPL in the scariest way possible. I've met many during my career.
cjbprime 14y ago
Untrue. > By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
- callahad 14y ago
  For even greater emphasis: the FSF has a vested interest in promoting a maximally broad interpretation of the GPL. It's not legal advice, but when even their own FAQ says you're in the clear, you're likely to be pretty damn "safe."
  - pjscott 14y ago
    The FSF wants the GPL to be a license that people will actually use, and within that constraint, they want it to be interpreted in a way that most strictly protects software freedom, as they see it. If they just wanted it to be as broad as possible, they would be shooting themselves in the feet; it's easy for ticked-off software creators to switch to a less restrictive license if they own the copyright to software under the GPL. This, for example, is why the FSF always mentions explicitly that they do not consider merely using a tool like grep as part of a shell script to be a derived work. They have to be reasonable, or they lose their power.
- vlasta2 14y ago
  Agree, but I think the GPL examples about communication mechanisms are pretty weird and sometimes absurd. Consider this scenario: Someone takes a GIMP plug-in licensed under GPL and converts it to a Photoshop plug-in (which is a DLL and shares memory space with Photoshop). According to GPL, Photoshop would now have to be open-sourced, but the person, who converted the plug-in does not have access to Photoshop source code. What now? Goes GPL actually forbids the existence of this? What if the converted plug-in with the source code is published? Is that actually illegal? What if they only publish the adapted source code and not the binary? What if a third person compiles it and publishes the binary? Who would be the guilty party?
  - flomo 14y ago
    I've followed GPL discussions from the sidelines for sometime, and whenever someone comes up with a 'trick' scenario like this, the standard advice is "if you'd like to do that, call your lawyer". (The legal definition of 'derived works' is based in case law and is more complex than what you'd find in a FSF FAQ.)
  - aidenn0 14y ago
    IANAL, but: Distributing a photoshop plugin containing GPL code is a violation of the GPL as it is worded. If that part of the GPL is enforcable (no precedent that I am aware of) then you would essentially be pirating the GPL code, and can be sued for monetary damages by the owner of the copyright for that code.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > Distributing a photoshop plugin containing GPL code is a violation of the GPL as it is worded. That would only be true if the distributor failed to provide the source code to any interested party who asked for it. If he met that requirement, and if he included all the original copyright notices in the source along with his own, there's no violation.
      - aidenn0 14y ago
        The source code to photoshop?
sigzero 14y ago
There is no way on God's green Earth that you can say his product is a derived work of GNU grep because it is used in the way he describes. At the very least, they just have to provide the source for grep.

jlgreco 14y ago

Yeah, that is my thought too. Maybe he thinks including a call to grep that the users shell would read/fork/exec is a type of linking? Seems like a stretch.