[OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries

Tue May 5 13:47:13 PDT 2009

Yeah !

I found the flaw :
There is two files in glibc folder, COPYING and COPYING.LIB.
COPYING is the GPL text.
COPYING.LIB is the LGPL text.

Logic !

And the presence of the license text don't mean that the software is under 
that license. The mention that means what license is to be applied could be 
under any file writen by "the copyright holder", and in this case it is the 
README file.

It is what I have missed.

Thanks

Jérôme
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Schmidt" <crschmidt at crschmidt.net>
To: "OSGeo Discussions" <discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries

> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:09:50PM +0200, Cuinet Jérôme wrote:
>> I'm curious and I have seen the GNU libc license, and it's obviously GPL.
>
> It's not GPL, it's LGPL.
>
> "Released under the GNU Lesser General Public License, glibc is free 
> software."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library
>
>> According to this thread, if I have well understood the GPL, all software
>> linked with glibc are licensed under GPL ?
>
> If glibc was GPL, yes.
>
>> I had seen
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#PortProgramToGL wich
>> suggest that a lib such as glibc is under LGPL. But the license text of
>> glibc is well the GPL, with the last paragraph : "This General Public
>> License does not permit incorporating your program into
>> proprietary programs."
>
> Where are you getting the license text of glibc that it says this?
> I can't find a license file which indicates this.
>
>>
>> What I have missed ?
>>
>>
>> Jérôme
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "P Kishor" <punk.kish at gmail.com>
>> To: "OSGeo Discussions" <discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Christopher Schmidt
>> <crschmidt at crschmidt.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:55:47AM -0500, P Kishor wrote:
>> ..
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Dan (and Christopher and others), I see the distinction now
>>>> between GPL and LGPL. However, I am reading the actual GPL text and
>>>> its extensive FAQ, instead of Wikipedia's interpretation of it, to try
>>>> and sift through all the variations and exceptions to better
>>>> understand this now. Hopefully I will come out better informed from
>>>> this process. In the meantime, the distinction that you point out
>>>> between GPL and LGPL makes sense.
>>>
>>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
>>>
>>> "The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions."
>>>
>> ..
>>
>> This actually gets even more clear as mud... from the para above the
>> link provided above, we have the following --
>>
>> ----
>> Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered
>> plug-in?
>>
>> 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.
>> ----
>>
>> So, the above question is possibly closer in spirit to the OP that
>> started this thread. Can I create a commercial (and ostensibly closed
>> source, although that closed-source-ness of the program was not asked
>> for by the OP) program with "LGPL GIS SDK or library". The answer
>> would be yes. But, the answer would be yes with GPL as well, but then
>> we would get into whether or not the result would be open or closed
>> source, and what the license of the result would be. Yes, I muddied
>> the issue a bit by using the example of ShapeLib, but, perhaps that is
>> a good thing, because it does illustrate the need for thinking it
>> through carefully... what are we doing with the GPL program? Are we
>> linking? Are we doing a "simple fork and exec"? Do we have some other
>> borderline case?
>>
>> Once again, the clearest advice would be -- if you think you have the
>> possibility of creating a business that is based on software worth
>> protecting its source, and yet want to use other free software, pony
>> up some cash up-front and get a real lawyer to advice you. Don't
>> listen to folks on mailing lists or read wikipedia articles... invest
>> in a lawyer. Otherwise, take the easy way out and stay free.
>>
>> I actually quite like GPL's philosophy -- it doesn't restrict at all
>> what I do with GPLed software. It only stops me from restricting
>> others.
>>
>> Puneet.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> -- 
> Christopher Schmidt
> Web Developer
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 