Re: using the GPL Quake code in a commercial game
Re: using the GPL Quake code in a commercial game
- Subject: Re: using the GPL Quake code in a commercial game
- From: Dietrich Epp <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 03:10:15 -0800
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 01:02 , Jonas Maebe wrote:
On donderdag, dec 5, 2002, at 07:05 Europe/Brussels, Dietrich Epp wrote:
That's not what I'm concerned about. What concerns me are the parts
about encrypting the executable;
Nobody talked about encrypting the executable afaik, only about
encrypting the data. I think that even obfuscation of the executable
source would be considered a violation of the GPL.
Yes, people did. Some talked about decrypting the executable to /tmp
and running it from there.
running secure, closed servers that are designed to circumvent the GPL;
I really don't see how they would circumvent the GPL (or even be
against the spirit of the GPL). The GPL is just there to make sure that
if someone takes the code, improves it and distributes a binary based
on those improvements, that (s)he is also forced to distribute these
improvements in source form so that everyone can benefit from them.
Yes, but servers that should be part of the executable itself -- the
executable will not function without them. It's like writing code for
the executable, but without all the hassles of the GPL. It's a
circumvention in that it is trying to accomplish something without
making that one feature a derivative work.
Let's say that I download a GPL'd calculator, but it's missing my
favorite function Foo, a favourite among programmers, yet few know how
to implement it. So I write a proprietary program which evaluates Foo.
I then modify the calculator to launch my proprietary program when the
user wants to use Foo. The user could be completely unaware that the
two are separate programs, in her mind it is a single program, a
derivative work. But I tried to make it not derivative. I am not
saying that this would follow the GPL, but this is roughly equivalent to
what I think that I have heard on this thread.
I laud the notion of independent groups creating programs based on GPL
and selling the programs. How do you thing RedHat makes money? But I
think it is dishonest when someone distributes something that was made
from GPL software and is not up front about it.
Some may think that GPL and proprietary software can mix to form one
product. This is, if not against the GPL, minimally poor software that
will only see as many uses (or platforms) as the proprietary software is
compatible.
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.