PanoTools:
Re: copyright violation?
Valient Gough 2004-Sep-11 21:36:11
--- In #removed#, Glenn Barry <#removed#>
wrote:
> Now for the GUI's, they don't derive their code from panotools,
they
> utilise it's function in the form of the pano12.dll.
Ahh, but here is where you are overlooking something. How do they
manage to utilize functions from pano12.dll? By including code from
the Panorama-Tools header files! Lets take an example of one
particular GUI tool I'm aware of (no point in naming names). It
includes Panorama.h and Filter.h, which combined comprise over 1100
lines of copyrighted code.
> But as both the pano12.dll and it's source are distributed with
these
> programs, along with modifications and updates, I don't see where
> there's any possible issues.
When the GUI builder included a thousand lines of code from
panorama-tools into his program, that causes the linker to build
those into their executable. That in itself is not a problem,
however when they then go on to *distribute* that executable which
in part comprises of copyrighted code, then there is a problem.
> If things were otherwise the point made earlier that commercial
programs
> for Linux would be impossible would actually be true.
This is a common misunderstanding. Most of the base libraries in
Linux are licensed under the *LGPL* (the Lesser GPL, or "Library
GPL" as it was formerly known). The LGPL gives explicit permission
to link LGPL libraries into commercial programs and not force any
requirement on those program. That was the entire reason for
creating the LGPL. However a few base libraries (such a readline)
were kept under the GPL, because the owners did not want them used
by non-free executables (and they aren't).
I think people are also misreading Larry Rosen's short paper on
trying to clarify boundaries for derived works. If you go to his
site you will see that he is part of the Open Source Initiative and
is not saying that the GPL is unenforcable. In a recent interview
he says "The GPL is the archetype, the first and best and most
popular and most influential of all open-source licenses."
Furthermore, it is a gamble for anyone who is creating programs
which use parts of Panorama-tools and not following the GPL license.
The GPL states in section 4 that if you are not following the
license, then you loose any right under the GPL to distribute the
work. The copyright owners may decide to forgive you in the future,
but they are not required to. Other court cases have had the same
questions -- MySQL AB sued another company for violating its GPL
license on its code, and they decided not to forgive them for past
actions. The FSF says that it normally forgives past copyright
violations in order to quickly resolve the issue, but it is not
required to do so.
If you prefer historical parallels, a company (Vidomi) tried exactly
the same thing as is being stated here -- they linked with a GPL
library and claimed that since they had not modified the library in
any way that they didn't need to follow the GPL license for their
program. The FSF got involved and the end result was that Vidomi
released that program under the GPL.
regards,
Valient
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/.Cr1lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoTools/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
#removed#
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/