- Open source mac software for word press tools code#
- Open source mac software for word press tools license#
- Open source mac software for word press tools free#
He seems to confuse or conflate Open Source Initiative (OSI) and Free Software Foundation (FSF).
Open source mac software for word press tools license#
Only when the derived work is distributed the following applies (quoting GPLv2, section 6): “Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.”ĥ) The author repeatedly refers to an “Open Software Foundation”. Derived works that incorporate GPL licensed code, do not automatically become GPL licensed.
Executing a GPL licensed program from a script via process execution (“Unix fork”) explicitly does not impose any licensing restrictions on that script, as per GPL FAQ.
Open source mac software for word press tools code#
In particular he makes false claims that the following uses of GPL code would be “viral”: Lewis also fails to mention that the LASzip license is actually LGPL with an additional clause that explicitly allows even static linking without licensing impact on the main program.Ģ) He falsely claims that “Open Source” was never defined but fails to mention the Open Source Initiative (OSI) who coined the term and provided exactly that Open Source definition.ģ) The article misleadingly mentions the Free Software Foundation as the “anchor organization” of Open Source, repeats the old misunderstanding that “Free Software” should not cost money and fails to mention the “Free Software” definition by the FSF.Ĥ) The author spreads long debunked FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about the GPL, claiming that all “code touches GPL code in any manner is now GPL”. Combining the attack on the LASzip community with a rant against GPL while ignoring the main difference between LGPL and GPL is unfair to say the least.
The LGPL – not the GPL – explicitly allows the use as dynamically linked library without any licensing impact on the main program. Having said that, Lewis Graham’s piece contains many inaccuracies and unfair judgements:ġ) The author underhandedly attacks Martin Isenburg’s broadly supported attempts to have the LGPL-licensed de-facto standard LASzip accepted as an Open Standard and then goes into a rant about the GPL, while lumping both licenses together as “viral”. I recommend reading the LGPL section of the “ Copyleft Guide” or a good article on the Open Source “risks” and considerations during corporate acquisitions and mergers. The article contains grains of interesting and potentially relevant comments on the LGPL, but without properly spelling things out: The LGPL – if not amended with a static linking exception as in the LASzip license – has “ copyleft” implications when the library code is statically linked, which is somewhat similar to but not as strict as the “ strong copyleft” nature of the GPL. In its “Random Points” column, the June 2015 issue (Vol.5 #4) of Lidar News, recently renamed LidarMag, contains an opinion piece called “ Open Source Mania” ( PDF) by Lewis Graham, a director of the board with ASPRS, the organization that defines the LAS file format.