[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: [Cvsnt] cvs + M$ Integration with VS IDE]
From: |
Pierre Asselin |
Subject: |
Re: [Fwd: [Cvsnt] cvs + M$ Integration with VS IDE] |
Date: |
Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:28:56 -0600 |
> Tony Hoyle <address@hidden> writes:
> The way you previously explained it, he was calling a GPL'ed DLL -
> that's the same (in the eyes of the GPL) as executing a separate
> binary.
If I remember correctly, it *is* the same thing in the FSF's view.
Maybe a court would disagree. Does run-time linking with a GPL'd
library produce a derived work under copyright law? If a judge says yes,
the GPL sticks. If a judge says no, there is a serious loophole in the
GPL. Until the courts speak, the FSF's intent is that GPL'd dynamic libraries
are infectious; LGPL'd libraries aren't.
If I also remember correctly, a front-end that talks to a GPL'd server
through some interprocess communication mechanism is *not* affected by
the GPL. That could be a way out for him. In fact, he could turn the
tables and isolate the code subject to the Microsoft NDA instead of the
CVS code. Write a closed back-end for the Microsoft functions, document
the protocol used by the back-end (the protocol is his, not Microsoft's)
and write a GPL application that invokes the back-end as separate process.
Whether this is even possible depends on what the NDA covers. He would have
to be *very* careful here. If it were me, I'd rather be sued by the FSF for
copyright infringement than by Microsoft for nondisclosure violation...
Bottom line: he should isolate the GPL'd code in a separate server and
write a closed-source client. Until he does that, he can't distribute
his code.
--
Pierre Asselin
Westminster, Colorado