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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,565d6a6c6ff7cb37 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-02 11:05:54 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GPL and Plug-INs and XML\Ada Date: 02 May 2001 14:03:36 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 988827538 3070 128.183.220.71 (2 May 2001 18:18:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: dscoggin@cne-odin.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 May 2001 18:18:58 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.6 Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7096 Date: 2001-05-02T18:18:58+00:00 List-Id: "David Botton" writes: > If a person wrote an executable that had a plug-in architecture, would it be > possible then to include GPL'd plug-ins with out the application becoming > GPL'd? > > For example, If I wrote an application that had a closed lic. and it allowed > features to be plugged-in. One such group of features was for file "import". > So, I throw together a GPL'd plug-in that included XML\Ada and dropped that > dll in the dir and it is picked up at run time by the closed lic. > application. The key is the linking mechanism. I asked essentially the same question on a Windows CVS mailing list; apparently the Free Software Foundation position is that a "dll" (which stands for Dynamic Link Library) is _linked_, which is the term used in the GPL. So GPL dlls do "infect" the full app. > This would be different than: > > I write an XML COM object that uses XML\Ada and now my XML COM object is of > course GPL'd, but closed lic. programs (say in VB or Ada) could now use my > XML COM object to access XML. Here, since the connection between the application program and the COM object is by message passing over a network (hmm, I'm just assuming that), there is no "linking" in the GPL sense. So I would say no, the application is not infected by the COM object's GPL. > I could see where this case would be problematic (although I > question that also), but the previous cases seems to be no problem. > Would including a GPL'd COM / Corba object virus to my app and make > it GPL'd? > > Thoughts? Obviously we came to different conclusions from the same data. Clearly, if you are seriously considering marketing either of these mechanisms, get the advice of a competent lawyer! -- -- Stephe