[ale] License goop... was RE: [ale-unemployed] A proposal

[Joseph A Knapka]

Ken Kennedy wrote:
> 
> Woohoo! License fun...*grin* And some folks thought that emacs vs. vi,
> or GNOME vs. KDE was interesting...

Yah... see below...

> > Our goal was to have the ability to have a plug-in type of
> > architecture for adding functionality.  I don't think the
> > programmers got that far before they threw in the towel (long
> > story), but... assuming they did, can a plug-in for an app that is
> > under the GPL be kept proprietary?
> 
> No. Well...probably not. It depends. *sigh* Plug-ins are one of the
> tricky things. Just as an FYI, there is an excellent FAQ on the GPL at
> gnu.org: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html
> 
> A couple of relevant passages from there (sorry for length):
> 
> Q: If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the
> requirements for the licenses of a plug-in?
> 
> A: It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program
> uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate
> programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements
> for them.
> 
> If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
> calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a
> single program, so plug-ins must be treated as extensions to the main
> program. This means they must be released under the GPL or a
> GPL-compatible free software license.
> 
> If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication
> between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in
> with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline
> case.

<cue ominous organ music>

Let's say there's a commercial, closed-source product,
WhizBangAppServer, that publishes an API for dynamically-
loaded extensions. I write an extension that implements
the WBAS API. Assume I do this in a sealed room with
no access to the outside world save an air vent and
a beer tube, and specifically with no access to any
open-source code that might compromise my proprietary-ness.
After I finish my extension, I'm released from cleanroom
captivity.

Now, there's an open-source, GPL'd product, GnuAgeAppServer,
that has cloned the WBAS and publishes the same API. As
an experiment, I test my WBAS extension under GAAS, and lo
and behold, it works! Yay! Except... have I just been
forcibly open-sourced by the act of running my extension
under GAAS? Could *anyone else* have likewise "outed" my
closed-source code by buying it and then running it under
GAAS?

<cue fiendish laughter>

-- Joe
"I should like to close this book by sticking out any part of my neck
 which is not yet exposed, and making a few predictions about how the
 problem of quantum gravity will in the end be solved."
 --- Physicist Lee Smolin, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity"

---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.