[shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- From: Charlie <dalren@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: shell-coding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 20:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
Despite that the FAQ says that they would consider plug-ins part of the main
program, the license itself doesn't say this, and so its a matter of
interpretation of the license. My own interpretation would be that a module
would not be considered a derivative work, and therefore would not fall under
the GPL, if this ever came up legally it would be a matter for a court to
decide what constitutes a derivative work. My reason for believing that an LS
module would not fall under the GPL is the original point of the GPL was to
allow programmers to release their code to people so that people could use it
and improve it but also not take it and pass it off as their own, or make money
off of it. And in the case of a LiteStep module, you are not taking anyone
else's code, you are simply writing something that comunicates with LiteStep.
Hmm, just had a thought, based on what the faq says, almost all windows
programs would be considered part of windows, they make function calls to each
other, send messages back and forth, and share data-structures. Anyway, like i
said it really comes down to how you interpret the GPL
-Dalren
-------------------------------------------------------
> "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.
>
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- From: Nexistenz
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