>>53603970
Contact a lawyer
gpl is vague cryptic shit

File: gnuu~.png (177 KB, 298x360) Image search: [Google]

177 KB, 298x360

>>53603970
you can't write a non-free app that uses a GPL library. If you want to use that, you have to release it under the GPL.

not that you should be writing non-free apps anyway.

>>53603970
>I'm writing a non-free
Why? Are you trying to distribute a virus or something?
>GNU General Public License v2
You're fucked mate. If you're distributed that program to anybody, you're obligated to give them the source code too.

>>53604002
>you're obligated to give them the source code too.
not just that, you're obligated to give them the source to your program under the GPL license.

>>53604002
>You're fucked mate. If you're distributed that program to anybody, you're obligated to give them the source code too.
what the fuck
seriously?
So I've written 9001 lines of code on my own and there's one function that invokes the GPL program to do one thing, and suddenly I have to give everything I've done away for free?

>>53603970

Consider using a library without that virus of a license.

If you must continue, don't get your question answered here.

>>53604027
>and suddenly I have to give everything I've done away for free?
if I understand the GPL right, you only have to do that if you distribute your program. If it's for your own private use, go ahead. But if you want to distribute it, and also want to use GPL code in it, you have to distribute under the GPL.

>>53603984
>you can't write a non-free app that uses a GPL library.
What makes a program a library?
The linux kernel is licensed under GPL

I would say anything you run on Linux uses the Linux kernel to run.

Does that mean anything written for Linux needs to be under GPL?

It is a bullshit license if important and calling a library and using the resultvalues from the library constitutes derivative work.

>>53604060
>important
holy shit I am sleepy
importing

>>53604059
wow, that's pretty gay. So there's NO WAY AT ALL to use a GPL'd component on a nonfree program?

>>53604027
Anyone who receives compiled binary of your program has the right, according to GPL, to demand full source code of your program.
It is done to prevent people from profiting from work of people writing free code without giving anything back.

>>53604078
But if the GPL fucker isn't a part of the compiled program, but hosted as a web service elsewhere or something?

>>53604077
No, because that's the point of the GPL.
Find a different library or reimplement it yourself.

>>53604060
It's specifically to do with linking, which has a pretty well defined meaning in programming. You don't link the linux kernel.

>>53604077

That's kind of the whole point of the license. It's literally a virus.

>>53604059
just reverse engineer the batman. or in this case the GPL library.

>>53604060
well the goal of the GPL is to prevent people from doing what you want to do - taking GPL code and then incorporating it into something non-free. The whole idea of it is to say "you can use any of this code you want, but only if you give everyone else the same freedoms we gave you"

and no, just because the kernel is GPL doesn't mean the applications it runs have to be GPL. Same reason you can use a GPL web browser to view a page served from MS IIS.

>>53604091
What about programming languages that do not do linking like functional ones?

>>53604060
>>53604075
It does not have to be a library. Just including GPL code into your program forces you to release code when you distribute.
A program that runs on Linux does not actually have to include a single line of GPL code.

GPL is a communist virus

Use aryan programs with an aryan BSD license

You're fucked. This is why you don't touch freetard shit.

>>53604088
If you use your own code to make HTTP request, then, no, GPL does not apply to your program, to my knowledge.

>>53604103
>>53604099
It makes sense if you actually modify the program

but if you only use it like a database that is under GPL
then no it makes literally no sense why you should have to license your code under GPL

>>53603970
Never use any GPL related libs or assets.

>>53604123
If you just use a database that is licensed as GPL (by communicating with it through TCP), without putting any GPL code inside your application, then your application is not affected by GPL.

>>53604116
Sounds about right. Making the app function on its own self-contained program, but when it needs the GPL functions it contacts a server. Technology used in the server, including the GPL lib have their source codes 4free.

>>53604153
You are not putting GPL code inside your application by making calls to an external library

>>53604168
The GPL code is mapped to your program's memory when you link it, either statically or dynamically. I don't know if you can get any more "inside your application" than inside its memory space.

>>53604168
You're linking to it, like >>53604091 mentioned. Linking to GPL code means you have to license under GPL.

There is a variant called the LGPL that works how you want it to - you can link to it from non-free code, so long as you abide by the GPL for that library. The regular GPL does not have this, if you include any GPL code in your app, your whole program has to be GPL.

>>53604186
I am sure you can segment it into two memory areas and pass values to the gpl program and copy back the results.

>>53604206
So you're really going to have everything inside separate processes and deal with a bunch of completely unnecessary IPC just because you're a stupid proprietary cuck?

>>53603984
The standard GPL does not require the complete system to be open as well, but licenses like GNU Affero require that

At least if you didn't change the ImageMagick code and incorporated your program into it, instead use it as an external application or in combination with your stuff

At least that's my understanding

Licensing a shit

>>53604206
I think that might work. Have another program/process that has GPL code in it and communicate with it using IPC. This adds a lot of unnecessary complexity but very likely circumvents GPL limitations. Of course, you'd have to release the source code of your second process.

>>53603984

Just because it's open source doesn't mean it's non-free. GPL v2 and MIT allow monetization but the code has to be open source. If you just put it in some obscurely named repo on Github you're good to go.

>>53604523
>If you just put it in some obscurely named repo on Github you're good to go.
naaa I think the source has to be with the binary

File: Leopard_Desktop[1].png (333 KB, 800x500) Image search: [Google]

333 KB, 800x500

>>53603970
>so what do i need to do?

Need? Nothing. Just remove all the comments and use the code. No ones going to be like "hey, this is that GNU implementation!" when they're looking at it.

The GNU GPL isn't even a real license. Its just some text some programmer wrote. It has no legal power. People in industry do this all the time.

Pic related is a cluster fuck of "stolen" free software.

>>53604611
Except for lots of successful lawsuits and even Microsoft had to open-source some of their programs that used GPL code.

>>53604611
you don't seem to understand what you're talking about, which is fine, but you should ask more questions in the future.

Apple famously implements a lot of obsolete open source code because in many cases they adopted GPLv3 or something similar involving "copyleft" rather than "permissive" open source licenses.

copyleft is like a virus; even at MSR during my internship last summer that sort of copyright regime was even referred to by its pejorative "viral licensing" because it forces the rest of a project that incidentally uses that code to be open source.

Permissive open source licenses (like MIT and Apache) are much more realistic in the real world; unsurprisingly, you see lots of companies working with and on MIT-licensed projects.

Apple uses projects under licenses that are permissive. They also post lots of open source code: http://www.opensource.apple.com/

>>53604162
will this work?

>>53604696
For GPLv2 definitely. GPLv3 probably will also but I suggest you reading GPLv3 before accepting our advice.