EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  <20142015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  Index 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  <20142015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: Discussion about licenses, copyrights, business, and source code
From: "Johnson, Andrew N." <[email protected]>
To: "J. Lewis Muir" <[email protected]>
Cc: EPICS mailing list <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:13:36 +0000
Hi Lewis,

Read all of the answer to the last question at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins and consider: If the act of loading and executing a plugin that just runs to completion and returns a result is regarded as "borderline" but just about acceptable, and communicating with one via shared memory is equivalent to dynamic linking, then any additional communication between a main program and a plugin, say through an I/O stream, is almost certainly to be on the wrong side of borderline.

I may be splitting hairs, but someone reading that using fork & exec to invoke a GPL plugin can free the program from the GPL's restrictions may start them thinking about using that to subvert the GPL and not realize that they're on a slippery slope to probable infringement.

- Andrew

-- 
Sent from my iPad

On Oct 24, 2014, at 01:42, J. Lewis Muir <[email protected]> wrote:

On 10/23/14 2:58 AM, Johnson, Andrew N. wrote:
On Oct 23, 2014, at 00:07, J. Lewis Muir <[email protected]> wrote:
See:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

To me, that supports what I said.

Read the following FAQ points as well, there are subtle distinctions
between whether your main application is GPL or your plugin is GPL,
and I think the example you pointed to was for a non-GPL plugin to a
GPL application.

Hi, Andrew.

Hmm...I don't see the subtle distinctions.  I see distinctions for
linking and whatnot, but I don't see distinctions for the "fork and
exec" case.  I very much so respect your opinion on this, so I'd really
like to understand.  There are three FAQ questions that talk about
plug-ins and they all start with a paragraph that says there are no
special requirements if the program uses fork and exec to invoke the
plug-ins.  Here are the three questions and the first paragraph of each
answer:

* 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?

 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.

* Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?

 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.

* 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.

So, I'm not getting it.  What am I missing?!  Thanks for your patience.

Regards,

Lewis

Replies:
Re: Discussion about licenses, copyrights, business, and source code J. Lewis Muir
References:
Discussion about licenses, copyrights, business, and source code Emmanuel Mayssat
Re: Discussion about licenses, copyrights, business, and source code J. Lewis Muir
Re: Discussion about licenses, copyrights, business, and source code Johnson, Andrew N.
Re: Discussion about licenses, copyrights, business, and source code J. Lewis Muir
Re: Discussion about licenses, copyrights, business, and source code Johnson, Andrew N.
Re: Discussion about licenses, copyrights, business, and source code J. Lewis Muir

Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: Focus deadlock Pete Jemian
Next: EPICS Saclay Meeting oct 2014 mattei
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  <20142015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: Discussion about licenses, copyrights, business, and source code J. Lewis Muir
Next: Re: Discussion about licenses, copyrights, business, and source code J. Lewis Muir
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  <20142015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 17 Dec 2015 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·