Re: [Swftools-common] question about the license for swf2jpeg

[Chris Pugh]

On 19 February 2010 16:52, Gnomad <address@hidden> wrote:
> One of the reasons why so many people have difficulties understanding
> the GPL is the multiple definitions of the word "free."   More
> correctly, it is the difference between "free" and "freedom."  When
> you release only a binary program, even if you do not charge for it,
> no one else has the *freedom* to alter it for their own use.

Strictly speaking, that's not quite correct. Releasing a binary ( or
otherwise ) without access to the source code for same, simply means
that it is not covered by the terms of the GPL.  Alteration by someone
else just involves more effort in de-compiling or reverse engineering
it.  Unless the author states their terms use or misuse,  how is one
to know?

>  The goal of the GPL is *not* to restrict the ability of software developers 
> to charge for their work, but rather to
> insure that source code to all derivative works is made available to others.

Agreed.

> If you wish to follow the *spirit* of the GPL, you will release the source 
> code to your application which uses swftools, >or any other GPL licensed 
> codebase.  This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not you 
> derive income from the code which you have written!  In fact, you are 
> *encouraged* to derive income from an application
> compiled the source code that you release.

Again agreed.

> However, I  will re-iterate that following the *letter* of the GPL, if you 
> invoke whatever.EXE (where whatever.EXE is >built from unmodified GPL code) 
> via fork/exec (which is to say system(), etc.) you are not bound by the GPL.

The term used is calling that GPL program from 'arms length'.  See the section,

    * I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
system. Can I do this?*

here,

    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

You should still state that you are making use of the program, and at
least point to somewhere where the source code can be obtained, even
if you choose not to include that source with your own program.

> From a legal standpoint, your position is quite clear, as you state that you 
> want to include the exact same binary   >  that is a portion of the swftools 
> binary distribution.

As above, you must still state that you are making use of that
SWFTools binary, and point to where the source for it may be obtained.

> From an ethical standpoint, you should either release the source code to your 
> application, and/or donate a portion > of revenue to the swftools team.  
> Legally, you are not bound to either based on your description of usage.

Bearing in mind the above, if not releasing the application under the
GPL, then there is no reason to include the source for that part of
it, however as you say, from an ethical standpoint, it would be a good
thing to do.  What you get for 'free',

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

 you should ideally put back with interest.

Chris.

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Alec Bennett <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> My understanding, which of course could be way off base, is that the GPL is
>> there to protect code from being incorporated into closed source systems, as
>> opposed to simply using a GPL covered program as a component, which would
>> still have easily viewable sourcecode (and the GPL license). For example
>> there are countless commercial projects that package ffmpeg.exe with their
>> projects. They don't take code from ffmpeg, they simply include the
>> executable along with the GPL and easy instructions for seeing the
>> sourcecode. To me this means the spirit of the GPL is preserved, which is
>> that derivative works are still GPL'd.
>>
>> As I say, I certainly might be off base here.
>>
>> And I'm probably opening a big smelly can of worms here, but could someone
>> explain this line of the GPL to me?
>>
>> "To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted". How on earth is
>> being paid for your work "ethically tainted"? I understand that releasing a
>> non free program that someone else wrote is certainly tainted, but if you
>> wrote it yourself and are offering it for a couple of bucks to support
>> further development, in what possible way is that *ethically* tainted?
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF
>
>
>