Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Edwin Robert Tisdale]

Brian Gough wrote:

> Since your project is not free software,
> I can't offer any specific advice apart from that.
> The safest option is not to use GSL in non-free projects.

I believe that this is the correct interpretation of the GPL.
Anton Fokin must release his software under the GPL
(or a similar free software license)
or stop distributing the GSL with his software.

Anton may distribute his software without the GSL
so that customers would be obliged to obtain the GSL
(or another library using the same API) separately
and link them together themselves.

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Brian Gough]

Edwin Robert Tisdale writes:
 > Anton may distribute his software without the GSL
 > so that customers would be obliged to obtain the GSL
 > (or another library using the same API) separately
 > and link them together themselves.

I don't think any lawyer is going to recommend that as a business
model..  attempting to circumvent a license is illegal too.


Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Subject: Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL?
Message-ID: <9301130018.AA28371@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: daemon@cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:18:55 GMT
Lines: 45

               Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL?

People often speculate about technical procedures that might
circumvent the GPL in some way.  For example, they may suggest a
modified version could be cut artificially into two pieces, one free
and one proprietary, that are called two independent programs.

This kind of scheme is based on the premise that the legal system
operates in the fashion of a stupid computer program, and that
superficial manipulations of the way files are grouped and labeled
would fool it.  While the legal system often does seem stupid and
easily fooled in comparison with common sense, the FSF's lawyer told
us that it would not be stupid about this.

The lawyer said that such a scheme would fail because a judge would
regard it as a subterfuge.  The judge would conclude that the two
parts are really one program in disguise, and go on from there.

Our lawyer also said that a judge would tend to be harsh toward anyone
perceived to be trying a subterfuge.

As hackers, we tend to become absorbed in the technical details of the
proposed schemes, and not pay enough attention to the wider context.
The possibility of a loophole in the GPL might be interesting
abstractly in its own right, but its main importance is in connection
with whether the GPL does what it is supposed to do: ensure that
modified versions of a program are free.

Hackers also tend to model the GPL based on concepts used for security
systems, assuming that any puncture makes it collapse like a soap
bubble.  But business doesn't move like a gas; more like molasses.  If
a real, legally sustainable loophole were found, its effect would be
diminished by the inconvenience of using it.  This is likely to be
significant, and would dissuade most companies from trying.  Thus, the
GPL would still retain most of its effect.

Experience shows that companies are not eager to try to circumvent the
GPL.  If they think their plans might conflict with the GPL, they
generally contact the FSF to make sure there is no conflict.

The most fundamental point--the "bottom line"--is that as a practical
matter the GPL does achieve its goal.  Improvements to our software
are actually made free, and no amount of speculation can override this
fact.  Apparently, any loopholes are sufficiently inconvenient that
they are not much of a factor.

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Edwin Robert Tisdale]

Brian Gough wrote:

> Since your project is not free software,
> I can't offer any specific advice apart from that.
> The safest option is not to use GSL in non-free projects.

I believe that this is the correct interpretation of the GPL.
Anton Fokin must release his software under the GPL
(or a similar free software license)
or stop distributing the GSL with his software.

Anton may distribute his software without the GSL
so that customers would be obliged to obtain the GSL
(or another library using the same API) separately
and link them together themselves.

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Brian Gough]

Edwin Robert Tisdale writes:
 > Anton may distribute his software without the GSL
 > so that customers would be obliged to obtain the GSL
 > (or another library using the same API) separately
 > and link them together themselves.

I don't think any lawyer is going to recommend that as a business
model..  attempting to circumvent a license is illegal too.


Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Subject: Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL?
Message-ID: <9301130018.AA28371@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: daemon@cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:18:55 GMT
Lines: 45

               Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL?

People often speculate about technical procedures that might
circumvent the GPL in some way.  For example, they may suggest a
modified version could be cut artificially into two pieces, one free
and one proprietary, that are called two independent programs.

This kind of scheme is based on the premise that the legal system
operates in the fashion of a stupid computer program, and that
superficial manipulations of the way files are grouped and labeled
would fool it.  While the legal system often does seem stupid and
easily fooled in comparison with common sense, the FSF's lawyer told
us that it would not be stupid about this.

The lawyer said that such a scheme would fail because a judge would
regard it as a subterfuge.  The judge would conclude that the two
parts are really one program in disguise, and go on from there.

Our lawyer also said that a judge would tend to be harsh toward anyone
perceived to be trying a subterfuge.

As hackers, we tend to become absorbed in the technical details of the
proposed schemes, and not pay enough attention to the wider context.
The possibility of a loophole in the GPL might be interesting
abstractly in its own right, but its main importance is in connection
with whether the GPL does what it is supposed to do: ensure that
modified versions of a program are free.

Hackers also tend to model the GPL based on concepts used for security
systems, assuming that any puncture makes it collapse like a soap
bubble.  But business doesn't move like a gas; more like molasses.  If
a real, legally sustainable loophole were found, its effect would be
diminished by the inconvenience of using it.  This is likely to be
significant, and would dissuade most companies from trying.  Thus, the
GPL would still retain most of its effect.

Experience shows that companies are not eager to try to circumvent the
GPL.  If they think their plans might conflict with the GPL, they
generally contact the FSF to make sure there is no conflict.

The most fundamental point--the "bottom line"--is that as a practical
matter the GPL does achieve its goal.  Improvements to our software
are actually made free, and no amount of speculation can override this
fact.  Apparently, any loopholes are sufficiently inconvenient that
they are not much of a factor.

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Edwin Robert Tisdale]

Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:

> E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
> 
> > Anton Fokin doesn't need to comply with the GPL
> > if he doesn't distribute the GSL with his program.
> 
> This is simply not true. Please do not state your opinion as truth.
> Anton Fokin does need to comply with the GPL
> if his software R-Quant needs GSL to work.

It doesn't need the GSL to work.
Anybody can write a library using the same API as GSL
and distribute it under any license that they want.

> That is, if R-Quant includes GSL wrappers, R-Quant must be GPL.

No!  You can't copyright an API.
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) exists
only because it is possible to clone proprietary APIs
without violating copyright restrictions.

> This is not just my opinion: it has always been made clear by FSF.

Show us where you think your assertion
has been made clear by the FSF.

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Anton Fokin]

Well, until we are not sure which kind of (final) license we want to see for
R-Quant (open source/GPL/Qt-like/other) I prefer keeping flexibility in
making such decisions.

Thus we are ready to follow all the requirements like source code
distribution/copyright notes/etc.etc but today we wish to keep R-Quant under
"R-Quant" license agreement.

Cheers,
Anton

Kenneth Geisshirt wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Anton Fokin wrote:
>
> > There are three ways to solve this "problem"
>
> Actually, there is a fourth solution: put __your__ code under GPL!
>
> Kneth
>
> --
> Kenneth Geisshirt, M.Sc., Ph.D.         http://kenneth.geisshirt.dk
> GPG Fingerprint: 7424 AF49 AB47 03D4 D7C5  A07C 4D92 37E7 2F92 0B79
> Computers are like air conditioners
>                      they stop working properly if you open WINDOWS
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
> Refill any ink cartridge for less!
> Includes black and color ink.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/E11sED/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/GHeqlB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Edwin Robert Tisdale]

Brian Gough wrote:

> Edwin Robert Tisdale writes:
>
> > Anton may distribute his software without the GSL
> > so that customers would be obliged to obtain the GSL
> > (or another library using the same API) separately
> > and link them together themselves.
>
> I don't think any lawyer
> is going to recommend that as a business model..

Lawyers don't recommend any business model.
They advise their clients on the law.

> Attempting to circumvent a license is illegal too.

I think that you are reading too much into the GPL.

Anton Fokin doesn't need to comply with the GPL
if he doesn't distribute the GSL with his program.
His customers can obtain the GSL from another source
and link it into his code themselves as long as
they don't distribute the GSL with Anton's program.
There is nothing in the GPL or copyright law
that would prevent them from doing so.
It was never the intent of the GPL
to prevent them from doing so.
Your lawyers would advise you that
you would be foolish to sue anybody that did so.
Threatening to do so will not win any friends for the GSL.

I have advised and still advise people to avoid the GSL.
Using the GSL under the GPL simply invites
the copyright holder, the author or any of their customers
to sue them even if they comply with the terms of the GPL.

Please, Brian, if you want people to use the GSL,
try to be a little more helpful and a little less confrontational.

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[José Miguel Buenaposada]

I think you have to see it in other way ...

GSLsoftware it´s community software (in the same way Windows
2000 it´s MS software) so the GPL protecs the community software
in the same way the MS licenses protect the MS software.

The only thing community ask you is that if you want to make profit
with the community software you have to contribute your additions
to the community (in the same way MS ask you for money or
royalties). Why are you going to accept the MS conditions and not
the community ones? If you don´t want to make GPL your software
then you can not use community software, that´s all.

Regards.
José Miguel.

Edwin Robert Tisdale wrote:

> Brian Gough wrote:
>
> > Edwin Robert Tisdale writes:
> >
> > > Anton may distribute his software without the GSL
> > > so that customers would be obliged to obtain the GSL
> > > (or another library using the same API) separately
> > > and link them together themselves.
> >
> > I don't think any lawyer
> > is going to recommend that as a business model..
>
> Lawyers don't recommend any business model.
> They advise their clients on the law.
>
> > Attempting to circumvent a license is illegal too.
>
> I think that you are reading too much into the GPL.
>
> Anton Fokin doesn't need to comply with the GPL
> if he doesn't distribute the GSL with his program.
> His customers can obtain the GSL from another source
> and link it into his code themselves as long as
> they don't distribute the GSL with Anton's program.
> There is nothing in the GPL or copyright law
> that would prevent them from doing so.
> It was never the intent of the GPL
> to prevent them from doing so.
> Your lawyers would advise you that
> you would be foolish to sue anybody that did so.
> Threatening to do so will not win any friends for the GSL.
>
> I have advised and still advise people to avoid the GSL.
> Using the GSL under the GPL simply invites
> the copyright holder, the author or any of their customers
> to sue them even if they comply with the terms of the GPL.
>
> Please, Brian, if you want people to use the GSL,
> try to be a little more helpful and a little less confrontational.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Miguel Buenaposada Biencinto
Facultad de Informática                  | Computer Science School
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid  (UPM) | Madrid Tech. University.
Campus de Montegancedo s/n
28660 Boadilla del Monte, Madrid (ESPAÑA)| (SPAIN)
Voice    +34 91 336 69 47
e-mail:  jmbuena@dia.fi.upm.es
web   :  http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~jmbuena
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo soy Precario FPU, ¿ y tu ?: http://www.precarios.org

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Anton Fokin]

Kevin,

could you ask for a legal advise for us ? :)

Cheers,
Anton

Brian Gough wrote:

> Anton Fokin writes:
>  > Not exactly, see lines from GPL FAQ. Moreover, if I distribute libGSL under
>  > GPL (or whatever compatible license) together with R-Quant kernel which is
>  > not under GPL, would it solve your problem?
>
> I'll just have to refer you to my previous message and say it is your
> responsiblity to comply with the license of GSL when redistributing
> any related software --- you may want to take legal advice in case of
> any doubt.  Since your project is not free software I can't offer any
> specific advice apart from that.  The safest option is not to use GSL
> in non-free projects.
>
> regards,
> --
> Brian Gough
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Network Theory Ltd            Phone: +44 (0)117 3179309
> 15 Royal Park                   WWW: http://www.network-theory.co.uk/
> Clifton                       Email: bjg@network-theory.co.uk
> Bristol BS8 3AL
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Edwin Robert Tisdale]

Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:

> Once you reimplement GSL, you can say that
> the software does not depend on GSL for its functioning.
> But until you do, if you distribute software and say
> "this will only work with GSL
>  because no other implementation of that API exists"
> then you have a derivative work.
> quoted from the list archives -- original message by Mark Galassi

Mark Galassi is hardly an authority and he is certainly not impartial.

> Don't you think that
> the message "Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL?"
> by RMS is clear enough?
> If your software *depends* on GPL software, it must be GPL.
> Technical tricks to circumvent this dependency are just that:
> technical tricks.

Nonsense!  Please cite and quote the passage
that supports your assertion that
Anton Fokin cannot distribute his software
without distributing the GSL without it.

Java programmers distribute byte code all the time
which may depend upon a GPL'd Java Virtual Machine (JVM)
which they do not distribute with their code.
You can't force them to release their Java source code
under the terms of the GPL just because it runs in a GPL'd JVM.

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[José Miguel Buenaposada]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2710 bytes --]

I think you have to see it in other way ...

GSLsoftware it´s community software (in the same way Windows
2000 it´s MS software) so the GPL protecs the community software
in the same way the MS licenses protect the MS software.

The only thing community ask you is that if you want to make profit
with the community software you have to contribute your additions
to the community (in the same way MS ask you for money or
royalties). Why are you going to accept the MS conditions and not
the community ones? If you don´t want to make GPL your software
then you can not use community software, that´s all.

Regards.
José Miguel.

Edwin Robert Tisdale wrote:

> Brian Gough wrote:
>
> > Edwin Robert Tisdale writes:
> >
> > > Anton may distribute his software without the GSL
> > > so that customers would be obliged to obtain the GSL
> > > (or another library using the same API) separately
> > > and link them together themselves.
> >
> > I don't think any lawyer
> > is going to recommend that as a business model..
>
> Lawyers don't recommend any business model.
> They advise their clients on the law.
>
> > Attempting to circumvent a license is illegal too.
>
> I think that you are reading too much into the GPL.
>
> Anton Fokin doesn't need to comply with the GPL
> if he doesn't distribute the GSL with his program.
> His customers can obtain the GSL from another source
> and link it into his code themselves as long as
> they don't distribute the GSL with Anton's program.
> There is nothing in the GPL or copyright law
> that would prevent them from doing so.
> It was never the intent of the GPL
> to prevent them from doing so.
> Your lawyers would advise you that
> you would be foolish to sue anybody that did so.
> Threatening to do so will not win any friends for the GSL.
>
> I have advised and still advise people to avoid the GSL.
> Using the GSL under the GPL simply invites
> the copyright holder, the author or any of their customers
> to sue them even if they comply with the terms of the GPL.
>
> Please, Brian, if you want people to use the GSL,
> try to be a little more helpful and a little less confrontational.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Miguel Buenaposada Biencinto
Facultad de Informática                  | Computer Science School
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid  (UPM) | Madrid Tech. University.
Campus de Montegancedo s/n
28660 Boadilla del Monte, Madrid (ESPAÑA)| (SPAIN)
Voice    +34 91 336 69 47
e-mail:  jmbuena@dia.fi.upm.es
web   :  http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~jmbuena
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo soy Precario FPU, ¿ y tu ?: http://www.precarios.org

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Ferdinando Ametrano]

Robert Tisdale wrote:
>Anton Fokin doesn't need to comply with the GPL
>if he doesn't distribute the GSL with his program.
This is simply not true. Please do not state your opinion as truth.
Anton Fokin do need to comply with the GPL if his software R-Quant needs 
GSL to work.
That is if R-Quant includes GSL wrappers R-Quant must be GPL.
This is not just my opinion: it has always been made clear by FSF.

>His customers can obtain the GSL from another source
>and link it into his code themselves as long as
>they don't distribute the GSL with Anton's program.
That's true: any R-Quant user can *extend* R-Quant functionality adding GSL 
as long as
they don't re-distribute GSL with R-Quant.
This is not true anymore if R-Quant needs GSL to work: in this case R-Quant 
is derivative software and must be GPL.

>Please, Brian, if you want people to use the GSL,
>try to be a little more helpful and a little less confrontational.
if you want people to use GSL, teach them about what is free software.
I said free software, not stolen software.

>I have advised and still advise people to avoid the GSL.
Avoid GSL if you don't want your software to be GPL. This is what I do in 
the free software project I founded ( http://quantlib.org ), since I 
preferred BSD-style license.
I regret I cannot use GSL, but I respect and support Brian decision to go GPL.

Hope this doesn't sound too harsh.

Ferdinando Ametrano

PS Brian: have you considered to give the GSL copyright to the FSF?
from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html:
"Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. 
This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against 
violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted 
code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to 
do the same.
But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be sure to 
find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a 
violation."

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

Nando,

I am not sure if you have followed this list as long as I have, but my
personal conclusion is to not pay any attention to Mr Tisdale. He comes back
trolling every couple of months, and I prefer to ignore him. The wider list
seems to follow a similar strategy.

As for smartquant, they are /of course/ in GPL violation with their GSL
wrappers for as long the wrappers (and smartquant) are not GPLed.  This is
precisely why the GPL was written the way it was.

Dirk

-- 
Better to have an approximate answer to the right question 
than a precise answer to the wrong question. -- John Tukey

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Ferdinando Ametrano]

Robert Tisdale wrote:
>You can't copyright an API.
Of course, and once you reimplement GSL then you can say that the software 
does not depend on GSL for its functioning. But until you do, if you 
distribute software and say "this will only work with GSL because no other 
implementation of that API exists" then you have a derivative work.
         quoted from the list archives -- original message by Mark Galassi

 > Show us where you think your assertion
 > has been made clear by the FSF.
Don't you think the message "Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL?" by 
RMS is clear enough?
If your software *depends* on GPL software it must be GPL. Technical tricks 
to circumvent this dependency are just that: technical tricks.

Ferdinando Ametrano

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Brian Gough]

Anton Fokin writes:
 > Not exactly, see lines from GPL FAQ. Moreover, if I distribute libGSL under
 > GPL (or whatever compatible license) together with R-Quant kernel which is
 > not under GPL, would it solve your problem?

I'll just have to refer you to my previous message and say it is your
responsiblity to comply with the license of GSL when redistributing
any related software --- you may want to take legal advice in case of
any doubt.  Since your project is not free software I can't offer any
specific advice apart from that.  The safest option is not to use GSL
in non-free projects.

regards,
-- 
Brian Gough

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Theory Ltd            Phone: +44 (0)117 3179309
15 Royal Park                   WWW: http://www.network-theory.co.uk/
Clifton                       Email: bjg@network-theory.co.uk    
Bristol BS8 3AL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

Nando,

I am not sure if you have followed this list as long as I have, but my
personal conclusion is to not pay any attention to Mr Tisdale. He comes back
trolling every couple of months, and I prefer to ignore him. The wider list
seems to follow a similar strategy.

As for smartquant, they are /of course/ in GPL violation with their GSL
wrappers for as long the wrappers (and smartquant) are not GPLed.  This is
precisely why the GPL was written the way it was.

Dirk

-- 
Better to have an approximate answer to the right question 
than a precise answer to the wrong question. -- John Tukey

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Ferdinando Ametrano]

Robert Tisdale wrote:
>Anton Fokin doesn't need to comply with the GPL
>if he doesn't distribute the GSL with his program.
This is simply not true. Please do not state your opinion as truth.
Anton Fokin do need to comply with the GPL if his software R-Quant needs 
GSL to work.
That is if R-Quant includes GSL wrappers R-Quant must be GPL.
This is not just my opinion: it has always been made clear by FSF.

>His customers can obtain the GSL from another source
>and link it into his code themselves as long as
>they don't distribute the GSL with Anton's program.
That's true: any R-Quant user can *extend* R-Quant functionality adding GSL 
as long as
they don't re-distribute GSL with R-Quant.
This is not true anymore if R-Quant needs GSL to work: in this case R-Quant 
is derivative software and must be GPL.

>Please, Brian, if you want people to use the GSL,
>try to be a little more helpful and a little less confrontational.
if you want people to use GSL, teach them about what is free software.
I said free software, not stolen software.

>I have advised and still advise people to avoid the GSL.
Avoid GSL if you don't want your software to be GPL. This is what I do in 
the free software project I founded (http://quantlib.org), since I 
preferred BSD-style license.
I regret I cannot use GSL, but I respect and support Brian decision to go GPL.

Hope this doesn't sound too harsh.

Ferdinando Ametrano

PS Brian: have you considered to give the GSL copyright to the FSF?
from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html:
"Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. 
This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against 
violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted 
code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to 
do the same.
But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be sure to 
find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a 
violation."

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Anton Fokin]

Brian,

not exactly, see lines from GPL FAQ. Moreover, if I distribute libGSL under
GPL (or whatever compatible license) together with R-Quant kernel which is
not under GPL, would it solve your problem?

Cheers,
Anton

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside
your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free
and
non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a
way that would make them effectively a single program.

The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is
partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this:
if the two
programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one
program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has
to cover the
whole thing.

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel,
or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate
programs--but you
have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe
what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure
the users
clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the
collection.

If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a
system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of
their rights regarding
the GNU software. But if they know that what they have received is a free
program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.

Cheers,
Anton

Brian Gough wrote:

> Anton,
> I read the follow-up discussions on the smartquant list about GSL
> wrappers in R-quant.  I'm not sure what license these wrappers are
> under but if it is the R-quant license then there is a problem.
>
> Any distributed code which refers to GSL functions should be licensed
> to the end-user under the GPL.  The intent of the GPL is that we make
> our code free to other people if they do the same for us --- two-way
> cooperation.  The current R-quant license is not a free software
> license so there should not be anything distributed under that license
> which directly refers to GSL functions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Brian Gough
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Network Theory Ltd            Phone: +44 (0)117 3179309
> 15 Royal Park                   WWW: http://www.network-theory.co.uk/
> Clifton                       Email: bjg@network-theory.co.uk
> Bristol BS8 3AL
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
> Refill any ink cartridge for less!
> Includes black and color ink.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/bAmslD/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/GHeqlB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Edwin Robert Tisdale]

Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:

> Once you reimplement GSL, you can say that
> the software does not depend on GSL for its functioning.
> But until you do, if you distribute software and say
> "this will only work with GSL
>  because no other implementation of that API exists"
> then you have a derivative work.
> quoted from the list archives -- original message by Mark Galassi

Mark Galassi is hardly an authority and he is certainly not impartial.

> Don't you think that
> the message "Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL?"
> by RMS is clear enough?
> If your software *depends* on GPL software, it must be GPL.
> Technical tricks to circumvent this dependency are just that:
> technical tricks.

Nonsense!  Please cite and quote the passage
that supports your assertion that
Anton Fokin cannot distribute his software
without distributing the GSL without it.

Java programmers distribute byte code all the time
which may depend upon a GPL'd Java Virtual Machine (JVM)
which they do not distribute with their code.
You can't force them to release their Java source code
under the terms of the GPL just because it runs in a GPL'd JVM.

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

Nando,

I am not sure if you have followed this list as long as I have, but my
personal conclusion is to not pay any attention to Mr Tisdale. He comes back
trolling every couple of months, and I prefer to ignore him. The wider list
seems to follow a similar strategy.

As for smartquant, they are /of course/ in GPL violation with their GSL
wrappers for as long the wrappers (and smartquant) are not GPLed.  This is
precisely why the GPL was written the way it was.

Dirk

-- 
Better to have an approximate answer to the right question 
than a precise answer to the wrong question. -- John Tukey

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Ferdinando Ametrano]

Robert Tisdale wrote:
>You can't copyright an API.
Of course, and once you reimplement GSL then you can say that the software 
does not depend on GSL for its functioning. But until you do, if you 
distribute software and say "this will only work with GSL because no other 
implementation of that API exists" then you have a derivative work.
         quoted from the list archives -- original message by Mark Galassi

 > Show us where you think your assertion
 > has been made clear by the FSF.
Don't you think the message "Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL?" by 
RMS is clear enough?
If your software *depends* on GPL software it must be GPL. Technical tricks 
to circumvent this dependency are just that: technical tricks.

Ferdinando Ametrano

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Edwin Robert Tisdale]

Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:

> E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
> 
> > Anton Fokin doesn't need to comply with the GPL
> > if he doesn't distribute the GSL with his program.
> 
> This is simply not true. Please do not state your opinion as truth.
> Anton Fokin does need to comply with the GPL
> if his software R-Quant needs GSL to work.

It doesn't need the GSL to work.
Anybody can write a library using the same API as GSL
and distribute it under any license that they want.

> That is, if R-Quant includes GSL wrappers, R-Quant must be GPL.

No!  You can't copyright an API.
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) exists
only because it is possible to clone proprietary APIs
without violating copyright restrictions.

> This is not just my opinion: it has always been made clear by FSF.

Show us where you think your assertion
has been made clear by the FSF.

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Ferdinando Ametrano]

Robert Tisdale wrote:
>Anton Fokin doesn't need to comply with the GPL
>if he doesn't distribute the GSL with his program.
This is simply not true. Please do not state your opinion as truth.
Anton Fokin do need to comply with the GPL if his software R-Quant needs 
GSL to work.
That is if R-Quant includes GSL wrappers R-Quant must be GPL.
This is not just my opinion: it has always been made clear by FSF.

>His customers can obtain the GSL from another source
>and link it into his code themselves as long as
>they don't distribute the GSL with Anton's program.
That's true: any R-Quant user can *extend* R-Quant functionality adding GSL 
as long as
they don't re-distribute GSL with R-Quant.
This is not true anymore if R-Quant needs GSL to work: in this case R-Quant 
is derivative software and must be GPL.

>Please, Brian, if you want people to use the GSL,
>try to be a little more helpful and a little less confrontational.
if you want people to use GSL, teach them about what is free software.
I said free software, not stolen software.

>I have advised and still advise people to avoid the GSL.
Avoid GSL if you don't want your software to be GPL. This is what I do in 
the free software project I founded (http://quantlib.org), since I 
preferred BSD-style license.
I regret I cannot use GSL, but I respect and support Brian decision to go GPL.

Hope this doesn't sound too harsh.

Ferdinando Ametrano

PS Brian: have you considered to give the GSL copyright to the FSF?
from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html:
"Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. 
This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against 
violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted 
code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to 
do the same.
But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be sure to 
find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a 
violation."

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[José Miguel Buenaposada]

I think you have to see it in other way ...

GSLsoftware it´s community software (in the same way Windows
2000 it´s MS software) so the GPL protecs the community software
in the same way the MS licenses protect the MS software.

The only thing community ask you is that if you want to make profit
with the community software you have to contribute your additions
to the community (in the same way MS ask you for money or
royalties). Why are you going to accept the MS conditions and not
the community ones? If you don´t want to make GPL your software
then you can not use community software, that´s all.

Regards.
José Miguel.

Edwin Robert Tisdale wrote:

> Brian Gough wrote:
>
> > Edwin Robert Tisdale writes:
> >
> > > Anton may distribute his software without the GSL
> > > so that customers would be obliged to obtain the GSL
> > > (or another library using the same API) separately
> > > and link them together themselves.
> >
> > I don't think any lawyer
> > is going to recommend that as a business model..
>
> Lawyers don't recommend any business model.
> They advise their clients on the law.
>
> > Attempting to circumvent a license is illegal too.
>
> I think that you are reading too much into the GPL.
>
> Anton Fokin doesn't need to comply with the GPL
> if he doesn't distribute the GSL with his program.
> His customers can obtain the GSL from another source
> and link it into his code themselves as long as
> they don't distribute the GSL with Anton's program.
> There is nothing in the GPL or copyright law
> that would prevent them from doing so.
> It was never the intent of the GPL
> to prevent them from doing so.
> Your lawyers would advise you that
> you would be foolish to sue anybody that did so.
> Threatening to do so will not win any friends for the GSL.
>
> I have advised and still advise people to avoid the GSL.
> Using the GSL under the GPL simply invites
> the copyright holder, the author or any of their customers
> to sue them even if they comply with the terms of the GPL.
>
> Please, Brian, if you want people to use the GSL,
> try to be a little more helpful and a little less confrontational.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Miguel Buenaposada Biencinto
Facultad de Informática                  | Computer Science School
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid  (UPM) | Madrid Tech. University.
Campus de Montegancedo s/n
28660 Boadilla del Monte, Madrid (ESPAÑA)| (SPAIN)
Voice    +34 91 336 69 47
e-mail:  jmbuena@dia.fi.upm.es
web   :  http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~jmbuena
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo soy Precario FPU, ¿ y tu ?: http://www.precarios.org

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Edwin Robert Tisdale]

Brian Gough wrote:

> Edwin Robert Tisdale writes:
>
> > Anton may distribute his software without the GSL
> > so that customers would be obliged to obtain the GSL
> > (or another library using the same API) separately
> > and link them together themselves.
>
> I don't think any lawyer
> is going to recommend that as a business model..

Lawyers don't recommend any business model.
They advise their clients on the law.

> Attempting to circumvent a license is illegal too.

I think that you are reading too much into the GPL.

Anton Fokin doesn't need to comply with the GPL
if he doesn't distribute the GSL with his program.
His customers can obtain the GSL from another source
and link it into his code themselves as long as
they don't distribute the GSL with Anton's program.
There is nothing in the GPL or copyright law
that would prevent them from doing so.
It was never the intent of the GPL
to prevent them from doing so.
Your lawyers would advise you that
you would be foolish to sue anybody that did so.
Threatening to do so will not win any friends for the GSL.

I have advised and still advise people to avoid the GSL.
Using the GSL under the GPL simply invites
the copyright holder, the author or any of their customers
to sue them even if they comply with the terms of the GPL.

Please, Brian, if you want people to use the GSL,
try to be a little more helpful and a little less confrontational.

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Anton Fokin]

Kevin,

could you ask for a legal advise for us ? :)

Cheers,
Anton

Brian Gough wrote:

> Anton Fokin writes:
>  > Not exactly, see lines from GPL FAQ. Moreover, if I distribute libGSL under
>  > GPL (or whatever compatible license) together with R-Quant kernel which is
>  > not under GPL, would it solve your problem?
>
> I'll just have to refer you to my previous message and say it is your
> responsiblity to comply with the license of GSL when redistributing
> any related software --- you may want to take legal advice in case of
> any doubt.  Since your project is not free software I can't offer any
> specific advice apart from that.  The safest option is not to use GSL
> in non-free projects.
>
> regards,
> --
> Brian Gough
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Network Theory Ltd            Phone: +44 (0)117 3179309
> 15 Royal Park                   WWW: http://www.network-theory.co.uk/
> Clifton                       Email: bjg@network-theory.co.uk
> Bristol BS8 3AL
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Brian Gough]

Anton Fokin writes:
 > Not exactly, see lines from GPL FAQ. Moreover, if I distribute libGSL under
 > GPL (or whatever compatible license) together with R-Quant kernel which is
 > not under GPL, would it solve your problem?

I'll just have to refer you to my previous message and say it is your
responsiblity to comply with the license of GSL when redistributing
any related software --- you may want to take legal advice in case of
any doubt.  Since your project is not free software I can't offer any
specific advice apart from that.  The safest option is not to use GSL
in non-free projects.

regards,
-- 
Brian Gough

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Theory Ltd            Phone: +44 (0)117 3179309
15 Royal Park                   WWW: http://www.network-theory.co.uk/
Clifton                       Email: bjg@network-theory.co.uk    
Bristol BS8 3AL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Anton Fokin]

Brian,

not exactly, see lines from GPL FAQ. Moreover, if I distribute libGSL under
GPL (or whatever compatible license) together with R-Quant kernel which is
not under GPL, would it solve your problem?

Cheers,
Anton

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside
your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free
and
non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a
way that would make them effectively a single program.

The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is
partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this:
if the two
programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one
program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has
to cover the
whole thing.

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel,
or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate
programs--but you
have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe
what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure
the users
clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the
collection.

If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a
system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of
their rights regarding
the GNU software. But if they know that what they have received is a free
program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.

Cheers,
Anton

Brian Gough wrote:

> Anton,
> I read the follow-up discussions on the smartquant list about GSL
> wrappers in R-quant.  I'm not sure what license these wrappers are
> under but if it is the R-quant license then there is a problem.
>
> Any distributed code which refers to GSL functions should be licensed
> to the end-user under the GPL.  The intent of the GPL is that we make
> our code free to other people if they do the same for us --- two-way
> cooperation.  The current R-quant license is not a free software
> license so there should not be anything distributed under that license
> which directly refers to GSL functions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Brian Gough
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Network Theory Ltd            Phone: +44 (0)117 3179309
> 15 Royal Park                   WWW: http://www.network-theory.co.uk/
> Clifton                       Email: bjg@network-theory.co.uk
> Bristol BS8 3AL
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
> Refill any ink cartridge for less!
> Includes black and color ink.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/bAmslD/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/GHeqlB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library]

[Anton Fokin]

Well, until we are not sure which kind of (final) license we want to see for
R-Quant (open source/GPL/Qt-like/other) I prefer keeping flexibility in
making such decisions.

Thus we are ready to follow all the requirements like source code
distribution/copyright notes/etc.etc but today we wish to keep R-Quant under
"R-Quant" license agreement.

Cheers,
Anton

Kenneth Geisshirt wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Anton Fokin wrote:
>
> > There are three ways to solve this "problem"
>
> Actually, there is a fourth solution: put __your__ code under GPL!
>
> Kneth
>
> --
> Kenneth Geisshirt, M.Sc., Ph.D.         http://kenneth.geisshirt.dk
> GPG Fingerprint: 7424 AF49 AB47 03D4 D7C5  A07C 4D92 37E7 2F92 0B79
> Computers are like air conditioners
>                      they stop working properly if you open WINDOWS
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
> Refill any ink cartridge for less!
> Includes black and color ink.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/E11sED/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/GHeqlB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/