On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:23:46 +0200 Alexis Papadopoulos wrote: > Thanks for your answer... You're welcome, but, please, do *not* reply to me while Cc:ing the list, as I didn't ask you to do so. I am a debian-legal subscriber and I'd rather avoid receiving replies twice... Thanks. > > > Mmmh, you should explain the dependence relationship better. > > How do these executables interact with bamg? > > Do they invoke it by forking another process? > > Do they link against it? > > Do they incorporate parts of bamg source code in their own code? > > The invoke it by forking another process (more precisely the system > method of C++ is used). In other words, they invoke it just like a shell would do (more or less). They launch bamg as a separate executable process, passing it command-line arguments. If this is the case, I think that even the FSF would say that it's not necessary for bamg to be GPL-compatible... Of course, from a Debian point of view, DFSG and Policy considerations still hold (see my previous reply)... > > > What does he agree with? > > That bamg is distributed along with other files? > > Or that bamg is distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL v2? > > He agreed on the distribution of bamg along with rheolef, we are > allowed to include bamg's sources in our own. OK, it seems you are allowed to distribute bamg along with rheolef. That is enough for non-free, I think. But definitely *not* for main! Again see the discussion in my previous reply... > > > This depends on your answer to the above questions regarding the > > relationship between bamg and rheolef... > > > Doesn't the fact that bamg's sources are now part of rheolef obliges > us to make it GPL ? I don't think so. It would qualify as "mere aggregation". > > Now it gets a little bit more complicated (I hoped we didn't have to > go this far :). Bamg is undevelopped for more than a year now. > Instead it's author is working on a new application (FreeFem++), > which includes some of the bamg code, but creates a more complete > binary (bamg is only a part of it). Now if he accepts to release the > former code of bamg (the one I use) under GPL, won't he be forced to > do the same for FreeFem++, since bamg code has been used in it. (in > case this is revelant, FreeFem doesn't produce any bamg binary, it's > using the sources directly) ? No, because bamg author is the copyright holder: consequently he/she is able to release the same code more than once, each time under a license of his/her choice. And he/she is not bound by the license he/she chose: only the rest of the world is! Here, I'm assuming that bamg author is its sole copyright holder... > > I'll wait until I have a clear view on the issue before contacting him > again to propose GPL :). Good strategy. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpetr9NQNjk_.pgp
Description: PGP signature