Other GPL questions

  • Thread starter Deleted member 66267
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 66267

Guest


I did use GPL code in my software and was forced to release it as GPL, too. But the programming language I use doesn't have it own compiler but it first compile to intermediate C code and relying on GCC to produce the binary. The intermediate C code is completely unreadable by human. I don't want to release my work as GPL so what if I just release the intermediate C code as GPL but keep my original code (in the programming language I use) closed source?

If it's illegal then as I know GPL can't 'spread' into computer generated code. This mean the intermediate C code is not affected by GPL. So could I release my code (in the programming language I use) as GPL but release the intermediate C code as ISC license so I'm again could use the intermediate C code to build into a shared library and use it in my proprietary code without having to release it as GPL?

Thanks.
 

sidetone

Daemon

Reaction score: 922
Messages: 1,885

I think what has been release already has to be duel licensed, to the GPL and to a license of your choosing. I don't know if it can be revoked from the GPL. You're the author of it, so should be able to at least choose to release it as the one of your choosing. Maybe you'll be able to revoke it, as long as you're the proven author, clearly separate from adding on to someone else's authorship of GPL code.

Also, what you described has similarities to the Apache License, where people can release binaries to open source, but can choose to keep the code closed source or a license of their choosing. You asked about keeping one language of a program separate from GPL and another language of the programming under another license.
 

ralphbsz

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,407
Messages: 3,281

I did use GPL code in my software and was forced to release it as GPL, too.
I think that is incorrect. Using GPL code does not mean you have to release your source code. It only means that if you release anything (such as a binary, for example by selling it), you also have to release the source code. If you use it only personally and never release it, the GPL doesn't affect you.

But the programming language I use doesn't have it own compiler but it first compile to intermediate C code and relying on GCC to produce the binary.
Using GCC to produce a binary does not infect the source code that goes into GCC with the GPL. Your source code may be under GPL if you included GPL'ed code, but just compiling it does not in and of itself cause that.

The intermediate C code is completely unreadable by human. I don't want to release my work as GPL so what if I just release the intermediate C code as GPL but keep my original code (in the programming language I use) closed source?
The GPL has some words that say: what you have to release is the code normally used to to make changes. So releasing the unreadable intermediate code would not be sufficient.

If it's illegal then as I know GPL can't 'spread' into computer generated code.
I think this is incorrect. If you write some code of your own, and then mix it with GPL'ed code, and then run that mix through a pre-compiler that creates the "unreadable intermediate code", then the mixed product (either in source for or in that unreadable intermediate form) is under GPL.
 

vigole

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,560
Messages: 1,392

OP
D

Deleted member 66267

Guest


Quote from FreeBSD article @ docs.freebsd.org by Bruce Montague:
This is exactly what I mean when I write GPL can't 'spread' into computer generated code because the generated code is not considered as derivative work.
 
OP
D

Deleted member 66267

Guest


Let be clear. The problem is when I coded the program I didn't pay attention much to licensing of the libraries I used because I think if it's open source then it's just free, free in the meaning of give away. This is wrong. I picked up a library under GPLv3 with no linking exception. Such library is not popular, though. If I know I would not choose it but the LGPL one. Unfortunately, I did choose it. But now I don't want to release the code. And yes, of course I'm going to distribution it as binary. So they GPL now started to haunt me. So I'm trying to find workaround to not have to release my code under GPL by exploit GPL's limitations.

In a nutshell: I wanted to steal other people's code released under GPL by exploiting GPL's limitations.

I know this is unethical. If such workaround doesn't exist then I will comply to the GPL.
 

Zirias

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,701
Messages: 2,870

The hell?

GPL for libraries is an unpopular choice for a reason, of course EVERYTHING linking that library is "derivative work" and, yes, you ARE forced to either keep it to yourself (inlcuding all binaries) or release it under GPL as well. No shortcuts, no loopholes.

With LGPL, the "problem" is reduced to static linking. You can release statically linked binaries only as long as you also release whatever is needed for the user to build these binaries himself, possibly linking a different version of the library. If you only use dynamic linking, you can do "whatever" (including closed source).

Someone publishing a library as GPL clearly WANTS to limit what you can do with it, ignoring that is copyright infringement. For me, it means I'd never use such a library in the first place.
 
Top