26 Jul
2009
26 Jul
'09
11:24 a.m.
On Sunday 26 July 2009 03:14:25 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
This is true. Not a violation in itself, but it does obscure the situation.
Most projects that use GPL usually make it well-known. You don't
have to, but given the previous actions of these folks it does not
exactly look like they are trying to be above board on the matter.
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 01:20 +0200, Arnold Krille
wrote:
Whether you use another GPL library as code, directly compiled in, or linked
to externally makes no difference under the GPL. This is just another case
of where people have not gone to the FSF and read the FAQ page on GPL.
Hi,
...
The main point I remembered from the last thread with "Impro-Visor" in
the title: It uses gpl software itself. Which means that it has to
publish the modifications of that part at least.
True, if they have done any modifications to that "external" part. If
it's only using it (jmusic?) as a library, the license of the library
shouldn't affect the main software. But this has always been a hot topic
with GPL: how to link dynamic / static and how does linking affect the
license of the linkee. And as the
software is GPL licensed, the source _has_ to be made
available at least on request by ways equally convinient as the binaries
(afaik this ruling in the gpl-text wants to prevent that requests for the
source-code have to be written on 200$ notes or that the >1million lines
of code are sent via fax or snail-mail).
There is no statement about GPL on the Impro-visor site nor could I find
such a statement in the archive.org copies of previous pages. Wikipedia states it's GPL as does
http://www.softsynth.com/links/java_music.html
but .. has the copyright holder(s) ever declared it as GPL?
It does not make any difference whether the copyright holder of
Impro-Visor declares it as GPL or not. Once you use GPL code in
your application it too must be GPL. That is the viral nature of GPL.
Again, FSF and the FAQ on GPL. Read it.
Furthermore, as I said in my previous post: the
copyright holders are free
to stop using GPL. You may fork if you receive GPL licensed source from the
authors or from a previous licensee (someone who made a copy while it
was under GPL with the licenses intact etc.). You however may not fork
it based on a disassembled code not released under GPL.
Sure, but again not relevant to the current situation. Can we stick to
the topic, please.
Maybe I've missed something crucial in this discussion, so I'll ask the
stupid question (directed towards Raymond):
Was the impro-visor version 3.99 released under GPL?
.. or
Are you assuming the whole of Impro-visor is subject to GPL as it has
violated the GPL of jmusic?
Both.
A few days ago I put up a GPL header direct from one of the java files
in Impro-Visor to make it clear that I was certain they were violating
the GPL.
Impro-Visor compiles in the jMusic code, which makes it even more
evident that there is a violation. And the header clearly mentions
using jMusic. So there is no mystery in whether this under GPL
or that violations have occurred.
Raymond