GPL dispute

[dBlues]

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. "

So any work based on GPL code must be released under GPL if released at all. And in my opinion this is rather horrible. For example if someone wrote a great open-source sound-related library, whose code can be used without restrictions but is not allowed to be distributed without permission, doesn't it mean that OpenMPT might not able to use it? If so, GPL licence can restrict OpenMPT from using code that is allowed to be used freely without permission in any project(not to mention 'non-free' code). I just don't like that.

Hmm, what do you mean? Based on that text alone, OpenMPT could use GPL libraries but it would have to be licenced GPL. That would only mean the licence must change, it would still be open. Ok, you could distribute it freely after that (but why not?). But:

Code Select Expand

[GPL 2:]10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

And still if this would not work, you might be able to use a version of the program that was not licensed yet, provided that it exists of course...

[/off topic]

[Relabsoluness]

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. "

So any work based on GPL code must be released under GPL if released at all. And in my opinion this is rather horrible. For example if someone wrote a great open-source sound-related library, whose code can be used without restrictions but is not allowed to be distributed without permission, doesn't it mean that OpenMPT might not able to use it? If so, GPL licence can restrict OpenMPT from using code that is allowed to be used freely without permission in any project(not to mention 'non-free' code). I just don't like that.

Hmm, what do you mean? Based on that text alone, OpenMPT could use GPL libraries but it would have to be licenced GPL.

Being based on GPL code, OpenMPT is under GPL. So as far as I understand things correctly(which isn't so certain) it can't use GPL incompatible code, which includes proprietary code as well as some open source code. It's not that I'm saying that there's necessarily a need to use something like that in OpenMPT, but I see it as a potentially troublesome restriction - for development, one can't necessarily choose the 'best tools', because only 'GPL-compatible tools' are allowed(although then again, for non GPL project only non-GPL code is allowed). But also, I don't quite like the GNU ideology either; for example in GPL faq there's sentence: "To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted". Quite 'fanatic' in my opinion.

[bvanoudtshoorn]

You know, I can't help thinking that life would be a lot easier if MPT was released under the MPL...

[dBlues]

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. "

So any work based on GPL code must be released under GPL if released at all. And in my opinion this is rather horrible. For example if someone wrote a great open-source sound-related library, whose code can be used without restrictions but is not allowed to be distributed without permission, doesn't it mean that OpenMPT might not able to use it? If so, GPL licence can restrict OpenMPT from using code that is allowed to be used freely without permission in any project(not to mention 'non-free' code). I just don't like that.

Hmm, what do you mean? Based on that text alone, OpenMPT could use GPL libraries but it would have to be licenced GPL.

Being based on GPL code, OpenMPT is under GPL. So as far as I understand things correctly(which isn't so certain) it can't use GPL incompatible code, which includes proprietary code as well as some open source code. It's not that I'm saying that there's necessarily a need to use something like that in OpenMPT, but I see it as a potentially troublesome restriction - for development, one can't necessarily choose the 'best tools', because only 'GPL-compatible tools' are allowed(although then again, for non GPL project only non-GPL code is allowed). But also, I don't quite like the GNU ideology either; for example in GPL faq there's sentence: "To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted". Quite 'fanatic' in my opinion.

That sounds pretty fanatic to me too. There are lots of licences there for choosing, and knowing what is the best is pretty difficult. I dont know them too well, but I know most of them limit use in proprietary software (except e.g. LGPL, BSD and AFL) and require that the sources remain open.

By 'tools' you probably mean libraries? In any case, if you really need to use some library that is not GPL, maybe it is possible by writing to the licence writers. But that software would, with high possibility, have to be open as well.

Hmm, I got scared about MFC not being GPL, but then I read that it is considered to be a part of toolchain, this remedies the incompatibility. So keep on ruling, OpenMPT ... Phew  :lol:

[Relabsoluness]

That sounds pretty fanatic to me too. There are lots of licences there for choosing, and knowing what is the best is pretty difficult. I dont know them too well, but I know most of them limit use in proprietary software (except e.g. LGPL, BSD and AFL) and require that the sources remain open.

And of course there's 'the free license' - public domain. I downloaded source of a algorithm yesterday and it was so nice to see that instead of pages and pages of rather incomprehensible, vague lawtext, 'terms of use' was simply: "This code is in the public domain; do with it what you wish.".

By 'tools' you probably mean libraries?

For example.