[ale] License goop... was RE: [ale-unemployed] A proposal

[James P. Kinney III]

You are a twisted puppy ;)

You also have posed a situation when intent becomes a factor. In this
case, the Gnu version is a clone. The intent was to duplicate an
existing proprietary work in function. If the closed-source plug-in
works on the open-source app, that should be more of an issue for the
open-source developers than the plug-in one. Especially if the GNU
version was released after the plug-in. 

I think the forced GPL should only apply if the closed-source plug-in
tries to market itself as working on the GNU app clone. Otherwise, the
open-source developers should send a note the plug-in developer pointing
out that they have duplicated the closed-source API so well that the
plug-in works on the Gnu version. 

To further this line:

I think it might (not is, not will be, just might) be a prudent move to
add a clause allowing the copyright holders of a GPLed codebase to
grant, on an individual basis, an exemption to the "must open" clause
for a third-party plug-in after successful negotiations between the
closed and open source developers.  This would allow GPL coders to work
on apps and possibly get some financial rewards from third-party
interests by granting access to the API. A relationship such as Aladdin
Ghostscript and a GPL license for older versions might be a good
framework to consider. Sometimes it might be impossible to open up the
plug-in due to other code in the plug-in that its developers are using
under a restrictive license.

No matter how I look at it, at some point, the whole concept of
intellectual property is going to have to be examined more closely. 

How do we go from what we have now to what Star Trek proposes for the
future?

On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 19:26, Joseph A Knapka wrote:
> Ken Kennedy wrote:
> > 
> > Woohoo! License fun...*grin* And some folks thought that emacs vs. vi,
> > or GNOME vs. KDE was interesting...
> 
> Yah... see below...
> 
> > > Our goal was to have the ability to have a plug-in type of
> > > architecture for adding functionality.  I don't think the
> > > programmers got that far before they threw in the towel (long
> > > story), but... assuming they did, can a plug-in for an app that is
> > > under the GPL be kept proprietary?
> > 
> > No. Well...probably not. It depends. *sigh* Plug-ins are one of the
> > tricky things. Just as an FYI, there is an excellent FAQ on the GPL at
> > gnu.org: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html
> > 
> > A couple of relevant passages from there (sorry for length):
> > 
> > Q: If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the
> > requirements for the licenses of a plug-in?
> > 
> > A: 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, so plug-ins must be treated as extensions to the main
> > program. This means they must be released under the GPL or a
> > GPL-compatible free software license.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> <cue ominous organ music>
> 
> Let's say there's a commercial, closed-source product,
> WhizBangAppServer, that publishes an API for dynamically-
> loaded extensions. I write an extension that implements
> the WBAS API. Assume I do this in a sealed room with
> no access to the outside world save an air vent and
> a beer tube, and specifically with no access to any
> open-source code that might compromise my proprietary-ness.
> After I finish my extension, I'm released from cleanroom
> captivity.
> 
> Now, there's an open-source, GPL'd product, GnuAgeAppServer,
> that has cloned the WBAS and publishes the same API. As
> an experiment, I test my WBAS extension under GAAS, and lo
> and behold, it works! Yay! Except... have I just been
> forcibly open-sourced by the act of running my extension
> under GAAS? Could *anyone else* have likewise "outed" my
> closed-source code by buying it and then running it under
> GAAS?
> 
> <cue fiendish laughter>
> 
> -- Joe
> "I should like to close this book by sticking out any part of my neck
>  which is not yet exposed, and making a few predictions about how the
>  problem of quantum gravity will in the end be solved."
>  --- Physicist Lee Smolin, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity"
> 
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> 
-- 
James P. Kinney III   \Changing the mobile computing world/
President and COO      \          one Linux user         /
Local Net Solutions,LLC \           at a time.          /
770-493-8244             \.___________________________./

GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics)
<jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7 



 This is a digitally signed message part