The line is drawn when you are resolving symbols in memory and therefore you can make direct calls to the GPL DLL from your software. This goes for LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress: you are resolving symbols in the DLL so that you can call them directly. That is linking, though at runtime.
Now, if you run a GPL executable, there is no symbol resolution BETWEEN your software and the GPL exe. No problem.
The memory mapped argument is still pretty clear (well, for me.:-P). You can modify the GPL'd executable to open shared memory and then use that as an interface to your application (a protocol proxy, basically). BUT, you must release the changes you made to the GPL'd executable to make that shared memory interface; your software does not need to be GPL. If this was a violation, we'd be screwed because web browsers would have to be GPL'd if they connected to a GPL'd web server.
The line is really the facility for linking, whether it be at compile-time (static) or run-time (dynamic).
- Selling GPL and LGPL software is fine ("nominal fee" clause). The issue is that some of the packages that they are using are GPL'd and the company is LINKING against them. When you link to a GPL package when compiling your software, even if it is a DLL (same address space, symbols resolved in memory), the work becomes one as a whole and the whole package must be GPL. If the package is not GPL'd, it is a violation, even if you provide a license file (which they don't). When you link to a LGPL package, you do NOT need to LGPL your software BUT you need to provide a copy of the LGPL, a way for them to download the source to the LGPL package, and the object files used to link the software as a whole (this last one is heavily overlooked).
- It doesn't matter how popular a software package is. They are still violating the terms of the GPL and LGPL at $60 per sale. "But the code is free!"... no. Someone else wrote it and copyrighted it. If you want to sell software, you had better properly license or write everything yourself or you're cheating people out of their time.
- I did not contact the company because I am not a copyright holder in any of the packages whose licenses are being ignored. I contacted all of the projects to let them know of the violations. I have also contacted the FSF for ANOTHER software package (Wondershare DVD Slideshow Builder) who is using vcdimager in addition to most of the above named packages (ffmpeg, dvdauthor, mplex, spumux, mencoder). There are still a few others who I've found just in this category of software who are using GPL/LGPL software.
- The spirit of the GPL isn't just to let code proliferate (not that I am a spokesman for the GPL.. I don't know how it wants to be remembered...:-P). It is to let code freely proliferate (free as in speech, not beer). Any time a copyright issue comes up, it will always be a legal one because that is the nature of the beast. Copyrights exist due to laws. You can also argue that the company is bottling up the spirit of the GPL and selling it. (OK, that last one was rediculous).
This company and a couple others I'd seen make no mention of the GPL, LGPL, or any other licensing terms and provide no means to download the source code for the LGPL packages.
The reason this came up is because almost every package I installed seemed to contain these exact packages. The companies are profiting from GPL / LGPL software without respecting the licenses.
Well, any company who holds back from using free software for the reason of "there's no one accountable" will now see that there isn't anyone accountable for the software they have now!
will this help or hurt? seems it could unfortunately strengthen the upholding of UCITA in court.:P
if i remember correctly (which i think i do) i have imported a photoshop file into the GIMP, so the file conversion under linux does exist.
once the camera is released, hopefully we at the gPhoto project can get our hands on one (maybe a demo from the manufacturer) to write support, and reference the GIMP code for format conversion.
but the decision to go with the Photoshop format is a VERY odd one.:P that leaves out most ALL windoze apps for editing.
sorry, but this point isn't taken at all. how can you determine whether they are sincere or not? first off, at least they released it under "beta", which implies more work will be done. if they released it under "final" and there are the problems that i've read here, then you can talk all you want.
it is this kind of negative "rebellious" attitude that can bring down the support for the linux community. notice the keyword there though: community. they support us because we want it, and for them to take up the reins and write even just a beta driver is commendable.
sure the source code would be great, but the "suits" are having a hard time with being rational.:)
i say way to go creative. it's not taking a risk; it's taking a step towards the future.
i'm writing a complete voice-mail and fax system for linux which uses vgetty. the only problem is that your modem needs to be supported by vgetty.
currently, vgetty uses hard-coded modem support, and is a little difficult to hack to get working with modems that aren't supported in the release. so if you don't have a modem that vgetty currently supports, it takes a little hacking to get it working. this could be overcome if vgetty moved to a plain-text file for modem configuration, sort of like the (eek).inf files in win because essentially it is a matter of sending AT commands to the modem to put it into different states (record, playback, etc...) and those could easily be inserted in a text file, like say "Play AT+TX" to play a file, for example (probably not the right command.;)
anyways... there are programs out there. mvm, and other vgetty scripts that sit on top of vgetty.
I've got just my LS120 drive (not 1.44) and it runs fine. only catch is that the BIOS has to know how to handle the LS120. In mine (award 4.51g), it gives the "boot order" option to be "LS120,C:".
but it sounds like your BIOS is booting the LS120 fine, just that lilo is getting garbled somewhere.
i've heard though that the LS120 disks have 4 or 5 partitions, and the last one is the one that it actually uses. (use the linux fdisk program to view the partition info to make sure). try writing the lilo info there and reboot. if that doesn't work, try each one sequentially until it does. sorry i don't have an exact solution.:) if you find the solution, please post.
i'm not sure if there's software out there, but you can try this:
write the manufacturer and ask for protocol details, then contact the gPhoto developers (here) with the details. we'll build the library for you, and include it in the current CVS.
on the average, manufacturers are not-so-happy to provide protocol details (propriety stuff), so don't get your hopes up there, BUT (big BUT), if that route's a no-go, then contact the gPhoto developers anyways, and they'll help "get" the protocol with you.
of course, if there is software out there, then everything i said is for nothing...:)
i was thinking about writing one for a while, and came up with a couple things that might be cool to include if you find time to write one:
allows users to set up their own catalogs. reference a "catalog" directory in their home directory so that they can update whenever they need to. (i.e.: give each business an account and let them develop the catalog)
web interface for updating the catalog (prices, pictures, etc...)
"templates" or "themes" for product pages and indices (easy updating/creation)
database (for power) OR flat-text (for ease) data format
Slashdot Mirror
It is a very fine line. :-/
:-P). You can modify the GPL'd executable to open shared memory and then use that as an interface to your application (a protocol proxy, basically). BUT, you must release the changes you made to the GPL'd executable to make that shared memory interface; your software does not need to be GPL. If this was a violation, we'd be screwed because web browsers would have to be GPL'd if they connected to a GPL'd web server.
The line is drawn when you are resolving symbols in memory and therefore you can make direct calls to the GPL DLL from your software. This goes for LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress: you are resolving symbols in the DLL so that you can call them directly. That is linking, though at runtime.
Now, if you run a GPL executable, there is no symbol resolution BETWEEN your software and the GPL exe. No problem.
The memory mapped argument is still pretty clear (well, for me.
The line is really the facility for linking, whether it be at compile-time (static) or run-time (dynamic).
-Scott
Just to address a few comments so far:
... no. Someone else wrote it and copyrighted it. If you want to sell software, you had better properly license or write everything yourself or you're cheating people out of their time.
:-P). It is to let code freely proliferate (free as in speech, not beer). Any time a copyright issue comes up, it will always be a legal one because that is the nature of the beast. Copyrights exist due to laws. You can also argue that the company is bottling up the spirit of the GPL and selling it. (OK, that last one was rediculous).
- Selling GPL and LGPL software is fine ("nominal fee" clause). The issue is that some of the packages that they are using are GPL'd and the company is LINKING against them. When you link to a GPL package when compiling your software, even if it is a DLL (same address space, symbols resolved in memory), the work becomes one as a whole and the whole package must be GPL. If the package is not GPL'd, it is a violation, even if you provide a license file (which they don't). When you link to a LGPL package, you do NOT need to LGPL your software BUT you need to provide a copy of the LGPL, a way for them to download the source to the LGPL package, and the object files used to link the software as a whole (this last one is heavily overlooked).
- It doesn't matter how popular a software package is. They are still violating the terms of the GPL and LGPL at $60 per sale. "But the code is free!"
- I did not contact the company because I am not a copyright holder in any of the packages whose licenses are being ignored. I contacted all of the projects to let them know of the violations. I have also contacted the FSF for ANOTHER software package (Wondershare DVD Slideshow Builder) who is using vcdimager in addition to most of the above named packages (ffmpeg, dvdauthor, mplex, spumux, mencoder). There are still a few others who I've found just in this category of software who are using GPL/LGPL software.
- The spirit of the GPL isn't just to let code proliferate (not that I am a spokesman for the GPL.. I don't know how it wants to be remembered...
This company and a couple others I'd seen make no mention of the GPL, LGPL, or any other licensing terms and provide no means to download the source code for the LGPL packages.
The reason this came up is because almost every package I installed seemed to contain these exact packages. The companies are profiting from GPL / LGPL software without respecting the licenses.
-Scott
will this help or hurt? seems it could unfortunately strengthen the upholding of UCITA in court. :P
if i remember correctly (which i think i do) i have imported a photoshop file into the GIMP, so the file conversion under linux does exist.
:P that leaves out most ALL windoze apps for editing.
once the camera is released, hopefully we at the gPhoto project can get our hands on one (maybe a demo from the manufacturer) to write support, and reference the GIMP code for format conversion.
but the decision to go with the Photoshop format is a VERY odd one.
sorry, but this point isn't taken at all. how can you determine whether they are sincere or not? first off, at least they released it under "beta", which implies more work will be done. if they released it under "final" and there are the problems that i've read here, then you can talk all you want.
:)
it is this kind of negative "rebellious" attitude that can bring down the support for the linux community. notice the keyword there though: community. they support us because we want it, and for them to take up the reins and write even just a beta driver is commendable.
sure the source code would be great, but the "suits" are having a hard time with being rational.
i say way to go creative. it's not taking a risk; it's taking a step towards the future.
-=Scott
:) it's back up, but a lil' slow.
the site is toast.
/. effect is all powerful, and some servers can stand up to it, but you at least need to be runnin' something that is capable of handling it. :)
"NT server error number 2"
the
i'm writing a complete voice-mail and fax system for linux which uses vgetty. the only problem is that your modem needs to be supported by vgetty.
.inf files in win because essentially it is a matter of sending AT commands to the modem to put it into different states (record, playback, etc...) and those could easily be inserted in a text file, like say "Play AT+TX" to play a file, for example (probably not the right command. ;)
currently, vgetty uses hard-coded modem support, and is a little difficult to hack to get working with modems that aren't supported in the release. so if you don't have a modem that vgetty currently supports, it takes a little hacking to get it working. this could be overcome if vgetty moved to a plain-text file for modem configuration, sort of like the (eek)
anyways... there are programs out there. mvm, and other vgetty scripts that sit on top of vgetty.
I've got just my LS120 drive (not 1.44) and it runs fine. only catch is that the BIOS has to know how to handle the LS120. In mine (award 4.51g), it gives the "boot order" option to be "LS120,C:".
:) if you find the solution, please post.
but it sounds like your BIOS is booting the LS120 fine, just that lilo is getting garbled somewhere.
i've heard though that the LS120 disks have 4 or 5 partitions, and the last one is the one that it actually uses. (use the linux fdisk program to view the partition info to make sure). try writing the lilo info there and reboot. if that doesn't work, try each one sequentially until it does. sorry i don't have an exact solution.
Quote from the article:
:) confirmed by their decision to actually use Linux?
"We do not intend to use an inefficient multi-purpose operating system."
referring to Windows?
i'm not sure if there's software out there, but you can try this:
:)
write the manufacturer and ask for protocol details, then contact the gPhoto developers
(here) with the details. we'll build the library for you, and include it in the current CVS.
on the average, manufacturers are not-so-happy to provide protocol details (propriety stuff), so don't get your hopes up there, BUT (big BUT), if that route's a no-go, then contact the gPhoto developers anyways, and they'll help "get" the protocol with you.
of course, if there is software out there, then everything i said is for nothing...
those are a couple things...