On 15/03/12 20:48, Bryan Jurish wrote:
so now, to make it spicier, I found this FAQ: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any software which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license? Yes, because the software as it is actually run includes the library. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ is this a show-stopper for porting of the XS into a proprietary environment?Well, I wouldn't say that Max is "using" XS in this sense, but rather that Max acts as the interpreter for XS.
if it is distributed as a Max patch, and run under Max, this is probably true.
But generally this is not how an end user runs a Max executable ... they do not have Max on their machine, the executable they receive includes all required to run it. There are no Max "system libraries" to call, and they do not have a "Max interpreter" on their system. This is very much part of the whole closed source model that Max uses ... people making patches in Max for somebody else very often do not wish to give them the patch but prefer to keep it private, and even if they also give them the patch code they generally don't want to require that person to buy Max before they can use it so they provide the executable as well.
p.s. I would be happy if it was.
I'd say, but I am not a lawyer, that it certainly is partly the case - GPLed libraries can't be part of standalone executables that are distributed to another party. They can be used by someone who owns Max and uses it to produce such executables for their own use only. They can be part of a Max patch that is distributed for use within a Max environment.
Sorry if that's bad news for you... as Stallman would very likely not hesitate to point out, __any__ kind of restriction on what your users can or cannot do with your software makes that software less free, and is therefore generally a Bad Thing (at least for the FSF and those who share its interests and goals).
Yes ... to _use_ for anything, by anybody, without restriction. But distribution of executables is very deliberately restricted (in a way I personally think is very appropriate), and must be accompanied with the full, properly licensable and reusable under GPL, code for the _whole_ executable.
With this in mind the motivation to port to Max may evaporate.
If it's any consolation, I suspect that the legal issues get quite a bit murkier if we consider "binary" distributions of the (XS+changes) package (if such things exist; I seem to recall having heard about them at some point), since these would assumedly include some part of the Max "system libraries" as well. There's probably a GPL clause which handles that as well (java class libraries might behave similarly), but I can't seem to turn it up at the moment.
Such binary distribution is very much part of the Max closed source model.
Simon