[mythtv-users] TapeWorm Beta 4 - new features, and now, fewer bugs!
Jay R. Ashworth
jra at baylink.com
Thu Apr 6 16:23:38 UTC 2006
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 12:08:33PM -0400, Jeff Simpson wrote:
> On 4/6/06, Graham Wood <mythtv-users at spam.dragonhold.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:39:37AM -0400, Jeff Simpson wrote:
> > > Now look at the big picture
> > This is the step that is wrong. The GPL covers the work itself, not the
> > data generated - and this is a pretty fundamental step. Or do you think
> > that a company that creates maps has to release the maps as GPL if they
> > use software that runs on Linux to capture the data?
> True, the data isn't covered, and likewise, the MPG files aren't
> covered (It would be amusing to see a program like myth try to claim a
> license on something recorded off tv - the cable companies would have
> a FIT!). But the database schema isn't exactly deliverable data - it's
> what Myth uses internally to operate.
Doesn't matter. This has been covered explicitly in the past: the only
GPL'd program to date that *clearly* is viral in that sense, on a
"derivative works" basis, is Bison, which uses GPLd parser skeletons
that are *embedded in the code* of the program you generate.
There's even question about kernel modules, which are a tighter
integration than this is.
> If this windows app were using the proper mythbackend protocol, it
> would be considered a violation of GPL, right?
Nope. Just because it cooperates with something using a protocol
doesn't make it a derivative work.
Does sendmail's GPLness infect Outlook because one speaks SMTP to the
> > I wouldn't agree with someone creating such a work, and charging for it
> > (I've been ignoring this thread since I am not interested in such a
> > product) but I would argue that it's not illegal.
> Yeah, I was just throwing my thoughts on GPL interpretation out there.
> I'm in no way implying that anybody is going to run off to a lawyer or
> anything, I was just putting it out there as a "I think it goes
> against GPL, be careful" sort of warning.
GPL is a *license to use copyrighted code freely*.
WHich GPL, on which piece of code, are people suggesting this violates?
> > Before I get flamed by people - let me repeat there are two points to
> > this post:
> > 1) The GPL is not relevant, unless the code of myth is required for the
> > app to run - the data generated is not covered.
> That's probably a good way of making the vague wording of GPL more
> concrete. Interfacing does get a little hairy, though, since using
> somebodys protocol doesn't require their "code" so much as the design.
> > 2) I would personally not use something like that that required payment
> > - since that would be really nasty to the people that have put in so
> > much more work already.
I don't see how paying someone something for an add-on program that
provides additional functionality not provided by a base product is
Unless you're rms.
Jay R. Ashworth jra at baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
More information about the mythtv-users