Licensing Issues for LC developers [was: Re: Reading PDF - a cry for help]
chipp at chipp.com
Mon Oct 3 23:21:05 EDT 2011
Yes, Kee is on the right track. For instance the commercial app
"CutePDF" does exactly the same thing:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Kee Nethery <kee at kagi.com> wrote:
> The work around that I have seen used is to keep your code and the GPL code completely separate. In fact, when someone downloads and installs your code, the very first thing your code would do is ask people to approve the install of the GPL code. Then if they say yes, download the binary and install it on their computer. If they say no, let them know your software cannot function without the GPL code and then offer them the option of getting a refund or having your code download the GPL binary..
> Thus, you ship just your code. They purchase just your code. Your code installs the free GPL code if the user asks for it to be installed. In your manual or help screens you provide links to the source of the GPL code.
> That process seems to be used by others. Of course, I am not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV so you should assume everything I have just written is incorrect.
> Kee Nethery
> On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Graham Samuel wrote:
>> The applicable part of the GPL referring to compiled and complete versions of programs (such as GhostScript in binary form, which is what I intend to use) is Section 6. It does allow use of the compiled code, provided that the user is offered access to the source code (this is 6b). So Bernard, I think you are right and that Artifex is wrong - which means the use of 'free' software (using the term as GNU uses it) is OK.
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc.
More information about the Use-livecode