Hi,
I know I will certainely look stupid for asking the very same question I've asked some months ago (April 11th), which was answered by several persons here, but in fact I hadn't read carefully a software license which seems problematic to me :
I've coded a library which I distribute under the GNU GPL.
Someone made a software which uses my library, and distributes his software WITHOUT my library which has to be downloaded separately.
I thought rightfully that the other software's license was BSD, and someone on this list answered me that this is OK to do so, since GPL and BSD are compatible licenses, so they don't have to put their software under the GNU GPL.
But today I've read their license again, and now I'm puzzled.
Their license reads :
""" This software is Copyright (c) 2001 XXXXXX. All Rights Reserved.
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for educational, research and non-profit purposes, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following three paragraphs appear in all copies.
Permission to incorporate this software into commercial products may be obtained by contacting YYYYYY """
Their license doesn't end here but the rest is the end of the standard BSD license, i.e. the uppercased "disclaimer of warranties".
The "normal" BSD license says "for any purpose" instead of "for educational, research and non-profit purposes", and doesn't include a special offer for commercial licensing.
This license doesn't seem to be completely free to me.
So considering that this software uses my library, doesn't work without my library, but is not distributed with my library which has to be downloaded separately, is distributing their software under this license a possible GPL violation or not ? Last time I've understood that they can distribute each individual part of their own software under any license they want provided that my library isn't used in those parts.
It seems that the GPL FAQ entry at :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfLibraryIsGPL
clearly says so.
The more I read this FAQ, the more I think they should license their software under the GPL.
NB : Their tarball doesn't contain any license at all, nowhere, the license I'm talking about is only on their software's web site.
Sorry again if I'm looking stupid, but as we say here : "le ridicule ne tue pas"
Thanks in advance
PS : more info privately upon request
Jerome Alet
On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 01:19, Jerome Alet wrote:
""" This software is Copyright (c) 2001 XXXXXX. All Rights Reserved.
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for educational, research and non-profit purposes, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following three paragraphs appear in all copies.
Permission to incorporate this software into commercial products may be obtained by contacting YYYYYY """
This is NOT a GPL compatible license, however if they do not distribute the program with your library and the GPL Library is not necessary to run the program then it is not a GPL violation if a user compile by itself the program and link the library and do not distribute the whole thing.
IMHO, IANAL, etc...
Simo.
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 02:10:18AM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
This is NOT a GPL compatible license, however if they do not distribute the program with your library and the GPL Library is not necessary to run the program then it is not a GPL violation if a user compile by itself the program and link the library and do not distribute the whole thing.
The library is absolutely necessary to run the program successfully. It is used unconditionnally.
Jerome Alet
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 09:14:30AM +0200, Jerome Alet wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 02:10:18AM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
This is NOT a GPL compatible license, however if they do not distribute the program with your library and the GPL Library is not necessary to run the program then it is not a GPL violation if a user compile by itself the program and link the library and do not distribute the whole thing.
The library is absolutely necessary to run the program successfully. It is used unconditionnally.
If someone wants to use your library, the resulting product has to be under GNU GPL for the user.
If they only distribute their part (under that non-free license you've stated) then they do not immedeatly violate the GNU GPL. However nobody is allowed to link it to your library. Someone would argu, that they could not develop their program without using your library so I'm quite sure that this would be violation of your licensing terms.
Bernhard Reiter wrote:
If they only distribute their part (under that non-free license you've stated) then they do not immedeatly violate the GNU GPL. However nobody is allowed to link it to your library.
They are allowed to link it, but not to distribute the result.
Frank
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 08:59:50PM +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Bernhard Reiter wrote:
If they only distribute their part (under that non-free license you've stated) then they do not immedeatly violate the GNU GPL. However nobody is allowed to link it to your library.
They are allowed to link it, but not to distribute the result.
Thanks to all who answered so far.
In fact what they said to me when we talked about it some months ago is that there's no problem since they never distribute software they have not written, i.e. they only distribute their software, and never distribute mine.
If I understand correctly what you wrote, they can distribute their software under their non-free license, but nobody is legally allowed to run it since they can't link to my library which is absolutely needed technically.
Does any of you know how to obtain a clear advice from the FSF on this case ?
(I'm the only copyright holder, not the FSF)
Thanks in advance
Jerome Alet
Jerome Alet wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 08:59:50PM +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Bernhard Reiter wrote:
If they only distribute their part (under that non-free license you've stated) then they do not immedeatly violate the GNU GPL. However nobody is allowed to link it to your library.
They are allowed to link it, but not to distribute the result.
Thanks to all who answered so far.
In fact what they said to me when we talked about it some months ago is that there's no problem since they never distribute software they have not written, i.e. they only distribute their software, and never distribute mine.
If I understand correctly what you wrote, they can distribute their software under their non-free license, but nobody is legally allowed to run it since they can't link to my library which is absolutely needed technically.
They can run it, but not distribute it. ("The act of running the Program is not restricted").
Frank