[shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- From: "Nexistenz" <nexistenz@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: shell-coding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:52:13 -0400
> A module is not based
> off of the code that falls under the GPL. The only
> LiteStep code that you are using is the LiteStep API,
> and API's don't fall under the GPL, and I have never
> seen a licensing agreement for an API. If they did I
> can only imagine what the one for the Win32 API would
> be, you are not allowed to work on any open source
> program, and most give all your source code to M$.
I've seen many flames go on because of this.. And from what I
gather under the GPL any library that is linked to GPL'd
software, and has any form of IPC it must be released under the
GPL. Here's the quote from GPL faq link at the bottom.
"If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the
requirements for the licenses of a plug-in.
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program
uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are
separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no
requirements for them.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form
a single program, so plug-ins must be treated as extensions to the
main program. This means they must be released under the GPL or
a GPL-compatible free software license.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication
between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-
in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline
case."
As you know LS modules are dynamically linked and communicate
with each other (bang command anyone?) so you're forced to use
the GPL.
And the comment about the Win API is easily remedied by reading
the faq entry after the one quoted. Since the Win API is closed
source the software that links to it has to include an exception in
the license. Once again to quote the faq.
"However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an
exception to your program's license which gives permission to link
it with the non-free main program."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
Nexistenz - Stuck between a rock and a GNU/Hard Place.
__________________________________________________
Subscription options and archive:
http://www.freelists.org/list/shell-coding
- Follow-Ups:
- [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- From: Nexistenz
- [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- From: Charlie
- References:
Other related posts:
- » [shell-coding] Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- From: Nexistenz
- [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- From: Charlie