From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,25457a5aee9eaa04 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Received: by 10.68.201.132 with SMTP id ka4mr6820773pbc.8.1338670181212; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni12473pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2 Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:49:39 +0200 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: <4fc4fd1c$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <3MDSK83K41059.2087037037@reece.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: bLdOwM3I34j8ctb/Ms/dZg.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.00 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Date: 2012-06-02T22:49:39+02:00 List-Id: Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:31:55 +0200, darkestkhan = a = =C3=A9crit: > 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=E2=80=91deep replies about it, just =E2=80=9Cabove=E2=80= =9D 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 fro= m = > name alone. Yes >> Another one, is an example I encountered with an application named K3= D. >> 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 fr= ee = >> 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 proprieta= ry >> VST (but still free as in beer, you guess) in GPLed MIDI sequencers. = So, >> seems the interpretation depends on the actual interest (guess the me= ss = >> 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=E2=80=91GPL plugins with GPL applications? As far as I know, GPL wor= dings 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 i= s = >> not >> GPL (example: one you created yourself). Now what about the applicati= on >> 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 >> =C3=A0-la quantum mechanic, which will be know only at runtime? Or el= se, does >> it depends on the interface declaration used to compile the applicati= on? >> It this was compiled with interface specification from the GPLed libr= ary >> 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=3D20120531172522459 > 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=E2=80=91GPL, depending on the ex= ecution = context: is the program, GPL, non=E2=80=91GPL, 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=E2=80=A6 GPL soft= ware 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 interf= ace >> specification, part of the source which force an application to be GP= L? = >> I >> guess GPL fan will promptly say "obviously", but so, is the GPL a kin= d = >> 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 interrup= t = 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 late= r = (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 simila= r = > in spirit to LGPL (and when doing it one should use formal semantics t= o = > avoid as many problems as possible). Well, choose the words you wish to say it (:D), GPL has still to pray fo= r = 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). -- = =E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D [1] =E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.= =E2=80=9D [1] [1]: Epigrams on Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale Univers= ity