1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 <2014> 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 | Index | 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 <2014> 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 |
<== Date ==> | <== Thread ==> |
---|
Subject: | Re: Discussion about licenses, copyrights, business, and source code |
From: | "Johnson, Andrew N." <[email protected]> |
To: | "J. Lewis Muir" <[email protected]> |
Cc: | EPICS mailing list <[email protected]> |
Date: | Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:13:36 +0000 |
Hi Lewis,
Read all of the answer to the last question at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins and consider: If the act of loading and executing a plugin that just runs to
completion and returns a result is regarded as "borderline" but just about acceptable, and communicating with one via shared memory is equivalent to dynamic linking, then any additional communication between a main program and a plugin, say through an I/O
stream, is almost certainly to be on the wrong side of borderline.
I may be splitting hairs, but someone reading that using fork & exec to invoke a GPL plugin can free the program from the GPL's restrictions may start them thinking about using that to subvert the GPL and not realize that they're on a slippery slope to
probable infringement.
- Andrew --
Sent from my iPad
|