https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html


http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Please%20Stop%20Using%20GNU%20Licenses
http://gng.z505.com/cult.htm


And, I should point out:


"If I write a plug-in to use with a GPL-covered program, what requirements does that impose on the licenses I can use for distributing my plug-in? (#GPLAndPlugins)

    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, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means you must license the plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license and distribute it with source code in a GPL-compliant way.

    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.
Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program? (#GPLPluginsInNF)

    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. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in, and there are no special requirements.

    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, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.

    See also the question I am writing free software that uses a non-free library.
Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in? (#NFUseGPLPlugins)

    It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if the program uses only simple fork and exec to invoke and communicate with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.

    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, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.

    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.

    Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking.

    See also the question I am writing free software that uses a non-free library."

Essentially they draw an imaginary line between using "fork and exec" vs linking.


"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, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins"

And so we are in the realm of belief.

As we all know here that every computer program ran on a computer is connected by nested "data structures"... so fork and exec are just dereferencing linking
by an extra step.

What happens, when in the future, OS's use some other mechanism for execution? Is there really any difference between exec("app.exe") and LoadLibrary("app.dll")? (I don't mean an imginary difference created in the mind by obfuscated data structures. I'm talking about a fundamental difference(besides performance))


There is a lot of arbitrary language in the GNU license and the fact that it was created by lawyers for lawyers(see http://gng.z505.com/cult.htm. I realize the link looks a bit crackpotish but it has a lot of relevant points and if the numbers are right, shows more than enough proof).


As usual, it comes down to who has the biggest bank roll and smartest lawyers to obfuscate the issues. The push for free software is becoming a nonsensical pursuit like most other human behaviors.

I think a license should exist that EXPLICITLY states what one can do with the source code and binary and what they are.

On Thursday, 12 January 2017 at 17:35:23 UTC, Ignacious wrote:

> I think a license should exist that EXPLICITLY states what one can do with the source code and binary and what they are.

I'm not sure about what your point is with this. The GPL is pretty explicit about what you can do with the code. No software license cannot define "derivative work". That is a question of law.

You offer an API and someone decides to build on it using the GPL -- no trouble there; your work is not a derivative of theirs, so their copyright cannot place restrictions on your work.

You build against an open standard and the only implementation is GPL -- your work is a derivative of the standard, not necessarily the GPL'd work.

You build against an open standard with an MIT licensed implementation and someone else builds a GPL implementation -- no trouble there; your work is not a derivative of theirs, so their copyright cannot place restrictions on your work.

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 01:27:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> You offer an API and someone decides to build on it using the GPL -- no trouble there; your work is not a derivative of theirs, so their copyright cannot place restrictions on your work.

That makes no sense(it's obvious by the definition of derivative so you are not saying anything meaningful/useful). Obviously if you build an independent work you are free to chose a license and no one building any work off of yours or not can cause you problems.

> You build against an open standard and the only implementation is GPL -- your work is a derivative of the standard, not necessarily the GPL'd work.

That depends. The standard could be GPL's too. Anything can be copyrighted and licensed how the creator wants as long as it is legal. In any case, that says nothing about a single work.

> You build against an open standard with an MIT licensed implementation and someone else builds a GPL implementation -- no trouble there; your work is not a derivative of theirs, so their copyright cannot place restrictions on your work.

You haven't really said anything relevant to the post.

The issue is with how the GPL defines proper use of pre-existing works. The ultimately point is that they arbitrarily decide how a work uses another based on "fork and exec" and "library". My point is that those are ultimately artificial because whether we call a function/app through a library or through a command line, they are effectively the same(the difference being performance/convenience, which is the whole point of loading a library vs using the command line).

They admit this in the gpl FAQ(if you read it you will see) but the fact that they still create arbitrary division suggests the license is somewhat meaningless/incompetent.

Licenses should be more specific in their terminology and their behaviors and effects rather than using arbitrary divisions.

Also, while not proof, the fact that the majority of donations to the foundation go to the lawyers(if true) also suggest that it is somewhat of a scam(at the very least, something is fishy).

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 01:27:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
>> [...]
>
> That makes no sense(it's obvious by the definition of derivative so you are not saying anything meaningful/useful). Obviously if you build an independent work you are free to chose a license and no one building any work off of yours or not can cause you problems.
>
> [...]

I agree with you that the GPL is badly written, but we mostly don't use it, basically only for the gdc compiler itself, so not a big deal here.

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
> You haven't really said anything relevant to the post.
>
> The issue is with how the GPL defines proper use of pre-existing works. The ultimately point is that they arbitrarily decide how a work uses another based on "fork and exec" and "library". My point is that those are ultimately artificial because whether we call a function/app through a library or through a command line, they are effectively the same(the difference being performance/convenience, which is the whole point of loading a library vs using the command line).
>
> They admit this in the gpl FAQ(if you read it you will see) but the fact that they still create arbitrary division suggests the license is somewhat meaningless/incompetent.
>
> Licenses should be more specific in their terminology and their behaviors and effects rather than using arbitrary divisions.
>
> Also, while not proof, the fact that the majority of donations to the foundation go to the lawyers(if true) also suggest that it is somewhat of a scam(at the very least, something is fishy).

This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you don't like. There are other sites for that.

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
>> [...]
>
> This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you don't like. There are other sites for that.

So, what is up with all the wanna be Nazi's running around today? Did Hitler come out of retirement??

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 06:37:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
>> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 01:27:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> That makes no sense(it's obvious by the definition of derivative so you are not saying anything meaningful/useful). Obviously if you build an independent work you are free to chose a license and no one building any work off of yours or not can cause you problems.
>>
>> [...]
>
> I agree with you that the GPL is badly written, but we mostly don't use it, basically only for the gdc compiler itself, so not a big deal here.

Yes, but D uses mostly bindings and if any of those bindings use it then It effects the D program that uses it. Since many of the bindings are written in C/C++ one can expect that many of them use the GPL license.

The boost license seems acceptable but who knows? Look how many were "swindled" by GPL.

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 15:15:14 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you don't like. There are other sites for that.
>
> So, what is up with all the wanna be Nazi's running around today? Did Hitler come out of retirement??

Retirement?? I thought he commited suicide...

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:15:14 +0000, Ignacious wrote:

> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you don't like. There are other sites for that.
> 
> So, what is up with all the wanna be Nazi's running around today? Did Hitler come out of retirement??

Nobody's committing genocide here. Nobody is producing murder factories. Nobody's even being authoritarian. One person is saying that they don't think this is a productive place to discuss this issue.