newLISP.dll removed from neobook plugin

[HPW]

In the latest upload of the newLISP-plugin for neobook I have removed the newLISP.dll from the ZIP, because this was in conflict with the GNU GPL of newLISP. So now the user have to download and install it separatly.



http://www.hpwsoft.de/anmeldung/html1/neobook/neobook14.html">http://www.hpwsoft.de/anmeldung/html1/n ... ook14.html">http://www.hpwsoft.de/anmeldung/html1/neobook/neobook14.html

[HPW]

My announcment on the neobook forum finds a first echo about GPL-License:



http://www.neosoftware.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10119&start=120">http://www.neosoftware.com/forum/viewto ... &start=120">http://www.neosoftware.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10119&start=120

[HPW]

Does this quote from here best describe the use of newLISP.dll:



http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... tarySystem">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem

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

You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.

A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.



However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.



The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.



If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.



If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.

To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, ..

Is calling the newLISP.dll from its own standard-installation at arm length?

[cormullion]

It seems a shame that the good intentions of lots of people get confounded by restrictions that appear similarly well-intentioned.



The passage you quoted doesn't seem to be modern enough to cover the idea of plug-ins... The phrase 'like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell' is close, but doesn't convey to me the same arrangement.



Is there a difference between incorporating some software that becomes a part of a product, and using a plug-in that extends the product but isn't part of it (ie can be removed at any time without affecting the base product)...?

[Lutz]

Libraries where around at the time the the GPL was written and when the current version of the GPL came out in June 1991, the personal computer, which made handling of files an easy matter, was well introduced.



In practice the requirement of keeping GPL and non-GPL software packaged separately has worked very well, because it always has removed the last step of making the joined installation of GPL and non-GPL software a one-click or one-button-push process, and for non-technical people this is a significant hurdle. Marketers know the importance of this and have always tried to find away around this wihtout much effect.



Everybody knows that discussions about the GPL can get very heated, mostly because many are not well enough informed about how the GPL should be understood.



The answers to about every question ever asked about the GPL can be seen here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/



Lutz

[cormullion]

I've never really been involved in GPL so I'm clueless - just on the side of the average user.



BTW - I seem to remember that GNU used to actively boycott Apple and all its works... perhaps the situation is different now, with MacOS X consisting of some open-source technologies...