Hi,

I got told in the CodeGear newsgroups that if you create a GPL'ed project, the tools used to create that project must also be GPL'ed otherwise somebody might require a commercial compiler to compile the GPL'ed project.

I have never heard anything like this before. As far as I understand, if a project is GPL'ed, it relates only to that project or projects based on the original project. It has nothing to do with what tools (compiler, editor, IDE, OS, etc) you used to create that source code. Is my assumption correct?

Otherwise, if there is such a rule (which I think is rubbish), it mean that if I used Kylix Pro or Ent edition, I was not allowed to create open-source projects. When in actual fact, I know of a few open source (GPL'ed) projects that used Kylix. If this rule exist, that also means Kylix Open Edition (OE) was rubbish, because as per Borland if you used Kylix OE you could only create open-source projects. If this rule did exist, then Borland would have had to GPL it's compiler and IDE as well.... Which is all the reason I think the original statement is rubbish. GPL has nothing to do with what tools you used to create the GPL'ed project.

Regards,
- Graeme -

_______________________________________________
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/

Well...lets see uhmm...., there are mega-tons of GPL'ed Delphi projects on SourceForge, and Delphi is not a GPL'ed tool. There are also tons of GPL'ed VS projects on SourceForge, and VS is most definitely not a GPL'ed tool.

puzzled,
Funky Beast

Your assumption is correct. There are many GPL projects that can be compiled with MSVCC or Borland C++, and these can hardly be called open source tools.

It is of course 'good practice' to use open source tools for an open source project for obvious reasons, but there is no requirement to do so.

Michael.

:-) Exactly what I thought and what I told the original poster.

Regards,
- Graeme -

_______________________________________________
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/

I got told in the CodeGear newsgroups that if you create a GPL'ed project, the tools used to create that project must also be GPL'ed otherwise somebody might require a commercial compiler to compile the GPL'ed project.

AFAIR there exists a requirement (how strong?), that a user shall be able to build the project from the source code, so that everybody can trust his selfmade binaries, and is not bound to binaries supplied by third parties. For this reason all modified source code must be made available to the users.

ACK

DoDi

No. The GPL hits the person who is distributing binaries. If the user does the final link of open source code to binary proprietary code, and doesn't distribute the result, this is not a GPL violation.

Since FSF afaik considers dynlinking linking in the GPL sense, distributing a GPLed binary that links to a proprietary DLL that doesn't come with the OS is a violation in principle.

The GPL hits *every* distributor of GPL'ed material, be binary or in source code. The distributor has the duties, and the user has the rights, specified in such licenses (not only GPL).

Interestingly modifications must be made available only to the users of that modified code, not to everybody. This leaves a grey zone in software contracts, where the provider can e.g. bind his client(s) by an NDA. While the user has the right to redistribute the modified GPL'ed source code, doing so will violate his contract with his immediate provider. [from d.s.r.m+u]

Since FSF afaik considers dynlinking linking in the GPL sense, distributing a GPLed binary that links to a proprietary DLL that doesn't come with the OS is a violation in principle.

This again is a result of the trusting principle, mentioned above. The use of closed source code is not allowed in (modified) GPL'ed projects. Otherwise everybody could turn any third-party closed source project into a GPL'ed (open source) project, by linking it to some GPL'ed material. The exclusion of OS modules was required for the same reason, since otherwise it were impossible to provide and use non-GPL'ed programs or libraries on a GPL'ed platform.

DoDi

In Ada language forum they have had many times this discussion. The following are the constant conclusions:

Dynamic linking has nothing to do with GPL. If DLLs are GPL and you use them, you must grant access to the source of DLL, not to the full project. Static linking of GPL tools require you to publish the final product as GPL, and grant access to the sources of the full project.

Generics are an specific problem. In Ada language generic libraries in GNAT have a special licence GGPL, (or something like that) to allow use them in propietary projects. Well, it had a special licence, they have turned into GPL, so, due Ada uses generics for everything, that makes impossible to use GNAT for non-GPL projects.

Santiago A.

IMO the kind of linking is irrelevant. When a project makes use of GPL'ed modules, it has to be GPL'ed itself. For libraries the LGPL has been released, which does not infect the users.

DoDi

To Hans-Peter, Marco and svaa,

You all miss understood my question - and which has already been answered. I'll explain my question again. Lets say we have a commercial editor/IDE called EditorA which uses a commercial compiler called CompilerA. The question was, can I use EditorA and CompilerA to create open source desktop application called ProductB.

The original author argued no, because EditorA and CompilerA is not open source products. He said that if somebody wanted to use the source code of ProductB, they would be forced to buy EditorA and CompilerA. I disagreed with the first part and said "tough shit" to the second part. The GPL relates to ProductB *only* and not to the tools (EditorA and CompilerA) used to create that product.

The original author said that you cannot use the commercial Delphi IDE and compiler to create open source software. I said BULL! SourceForge.net is full of open source projects created with Delphi. :-)

Regards,
- Graeme -

_______________________________________________
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/

My understanding and I am not a lawyer is that you are correct.. The gpl faq addresses this (
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html ):

I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) run-time library permitted under the GPL?

The GPL permits this because that run-time library normally accompanies the compiler or interpreter you are using. So it falls under the exception in GPL section 3.
That doesn't mean it is a good idea to write the program so that it only runs on Windows. Doing so results in a program that is free software but ?trapped? (in this case, trapped by Windows instead of by Java, but the effect is the same). (Historical note: As of December 2006 Sun is in the middle of rereleasing its Java platform under GNU GPL.)