Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:31:55 +0200, darkestkhan <darkestkhan@gmail.com> a  
écrit:
> I would have to read more about installing themes in WordPress but to my  
> best knowledge pure graphics can't be contaminated by GPL.

Simon gave an in‑deep replies about it, just “above” your message.



> It is problem we can't solve (also there is no public domain in many  
> countries in Europe) if people don't read licenses and assume just from  
> name alone.

Yes


>> Another one, is an example I encountered with an application named K3D.
>> That's a GPLed 3D modeler. It has a core application, which can load
>> plugins. As a 3D modeler, it lacks animation capabilities, which make it
>> useless to many artist. As their seemed to be a demand for that, I  
>> though
>> "why not make a plugin for standard shape-key animation?" (not for free  
>> as
>> in beer). I tell about this to the author to inquire about his/her
>> opinion, and was surprisingly tell if the application is GPL, then  
>> plugins
>> must be GPL too. How strange, in the same vein, you have VST plugins in
>> MIDI sequencers. GPL fan surprisingly don't hesitate to use proprietary
>> VST (but still free as in beer, you guess) in GPLed MIDI sequencers. So,
>> seems the interpretation depends on the actual interest (guess the mess  
>> if
>> such a fuzzy interpretation ever happens in a court or dispute). This  
>> one
>> is probably due to the phantasm to force every one to the GPL by any  
>> mean
>> (or else people using non-GPL VST in a GPL MIDI sequencer are wrong),  
>> and
>> make me think about two others issue in the same area (which follows).
>>
>
> This is called hypocrisy and it is illegal to distribute GPL software  
> linked to some non-GPL compatible license.

Interesting. But where does the GPL license requires users to not use  
non‑GPL plugins with GPL applications? As far as I know, GPL wordings is  
all about authors of derivative works and redistribution, and there is  
nothing I believe about any obligations made to simple users. So either  
you are wrong with that reply, either the GPL is messy.

>> A funny one. Say a library L1 is GPLed. You link an application
>> dynamically to L1, so this application must be GPL. Now say you have
>> another library L2, providing the same interface and service, which is  
>> not
>> GPL (example: one you created yourself). Now what about the application
>> which dynamically link to either L1 or L2? Is will be GPL or not  
>> depending
>> on runtime circumstance? So it may be GPL or not, in an undetermined  
>> state
>> à-la quantum mechanic, which will be know only at runtime? Or else, does
>> it depends on the interface declaration used to compile the application?
>> It this was compiled with interface specification from the GPLed library
>> then it is GPL and if it was compiled with th interface specification or
>> the non-GPL one, then it is not GPL? Obviously GPL goes too far and  
>> cause
>> potential paradoxes, when it requires contamination to be applicable via
>> dynamic linking.
>>
> :D API aren't copyrightable. If you distribute [this one is important -  
> if someone else will link it and distribute it then he is breaking  
> license] software linked against GPL then it must be under GPL  
> compatible license.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531172522459
> There was similar case in EU Court and it was also judged that API's  
> aren't copyrightable.
> One can write readline implementation with exactly the smae header as  
> one from FSF under BSD license.

OK (so GPL is not acting a software patent according to you). Still  
remains a part of the question: say a program *dynamically* link to a  
library, which may be either GPL or non‑GPL, depending on the execution  
context: is the program, GPL, non‑GPL, undetermined?. It's clear in the  
case of static linking, but it's not with dynamic linking. Contamination  
by dynamic linking is my opinion, an error of the GPL design. And above  
that, imagine a world where every one will do the same… GPL software could  
not even be allowed on Windows, if MS has a similar license as the GPL, so  
GPL look working, just because it is the only one of the like, and when  
one permit itself something he/she has to hope others will not do the  
same, there is a trouble somewhere, honestly.

>> The above one in turn makes me think about another one. Is the interface
>> specification, part of the source which force an application to be GPL?  
>> I
>> guess GPL fan will promptly say "obviously", but so, is the GPL a kind  
>> of
>> software patent? Could surely not be defended in any court.
>>
>
> IMHO everything in .h (or public part of .ads) files is specification  
> (API if you prefer).

So there is no infringement if as an example, I get a GPL C API  
structure's component's size and placement (just an example).

Talking about API, I would like to know what the GPL says about the  
particular case of syscalls. Is using a syscall instruction, an interrupt  
call (while interrupt are not any more used on Linux I believe),  
considered linking? Don't wast your time to chase for it, I will do later  
(just to know, I don't have any issue with it).


> Though GPL is not viral - it is protective/invasive (:D) [but I'm not so  
> sure about case of AGPL]. Maybe it is time to write new license similar  
> in spirit to LGPL (and when doing it one should use formal semantics to  
> avoid as many problems as possible).

Well, choose the words you wish to say it (:D), GPL has still to pray for  
others to not do the same, otherwise if a platform ever launch its own  
similar license, this will automatically disallow any GPL application to  
run on this platform (with the exception of something similar to LGPL,  
which would not expose this trouble).

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University