MP3 or Ogg Support

[mh]

Thankfully me neither! It strikes me that this is the kind of thing that would need to be tested in court, and I have no intention of becoming that test case!

I really do wish the GPL was a lot clearer on the whole issue of compatibility though, some parts of it do seem like a sea of fog.

[Baker]

DirectX SDKs are not gplable. DirectX may be a system componant, but the sdk is not.

The original Quake source release uses DirectInput and DirectDraw and the CD audio control in Quake uses some Microsoft media API as well.

Maybe I'm not entirely understanding what is being said or what the argument is.

How is the Ogre 3D GPL engine available for DirectX? This isn't the only DirectX game engine that is GPL either. I haven't looked at the source but you'd certainly think it needs the SDK to compile -- and that is no minor engine either.

Yeah of course the DirectX SDKs are not gplable but that is the operating system maker's 3D API and audio API and how on Earth is it ok to use their SDK with the GPL for video but not audio.

I mean this in the most sincere way possible towards the argument, but I call BULLSHIT. In fact, it might be worse than bullshit --- it might be FUD ... a destructive unreasonable and harmful interpretation meant not as a sincere honest argument.

Again, I'm criticizing this entire line of reasoning whereever it originated from. At least with what I know, and I'm not all knowing, it seems rather bizarre.

[mh]

In any case dynamically linking to DirectX is incredibly easy. Everything in D3D can be accessed by just doing a GetProcAddress on Direct3DCreate9 for example. Once you've got that you've got all of D3D.

[Baker]

I would like a link to any professional legal article from any reputable source saying that one downside of using DirectX SDK is that you are not able to use it with GPL software.

I have just spent a few minutes Googling for such information and I haven't even been able to find EVEN one instance of anything remotely close on a single site.

If this idea or concept were planted on a Wikipedia page, it would probably get the mark of "citation needed". I believe this is a fanciful and imaginary FOSS-nut originated "interpretation" rather than ANYTHING based in reality.

And in this instance, I think a such a citation is warranted for this argument to have an ounce of credibility. It seems preposterous to me.

[Baker]

Sooo .... uh, how is Sun Microsystems able to make GPL software that requires the DirectX SDK to compile?

The name of the software is only called VirtualBox (!).

[frag.machine]

I would like a link to any professional legal article from any reputable source saying that one downside of using DirectX SDK is that you are not able to use it with GPL software.

I have just spent a few minutes Googling for such information and I haven't even been able to find EVEN one instance of anything remotely close on a single site.

If this idea or concept were planted on a Wikipedia page, it would probably get the mark of "citation needed". I believe this is a fanciful and imaginary FOSS-nut originated "interpretation" rather than ANYTHING based in reality.

And in this instance, I think a such a citation is warranted for this argument to have an ounce of credibility. It seems preposterous to me.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

There are no Microsoft licenses listed as "compatible" with GPL v2 or v3. To me, that's enough.

[Baker]

Sooo .... uh, how is Sun Microsystems able to make GPL software that requires the DirectX SDK to compile?

The name of the software is only called VirtualBox (!).

^^^

Frag machine, the fat lady already sang. This argument has been thoroughly invalidated to the point that there is no longer anything to be discussed, quite frankly.

[mh]

Oh aye, there's a difference between what you can do and what the FSF would prefer you to do.

[frag.machine]

Well, then show me some reputable source saying that indeed you can mix those licenses, despite what the FSF says. Seriously, I'd love to be free to combine the Quake source with closed source libraries like FMOD without headaches to me. If you find someone explicitly saying that and willing to legally backing up this kind of action (as the FSF does in the opposite way) it would be awesome.

[Baker]

Well, then show me some reputable source saying that indeed you can mix those licenses, despite what the FSF says.

It's called Sun Microsystems. You know, the people who created Java.

Seriously, I'd love to be free to combine the Quake source with closed source libraries like FMOD without headaches to me.

That isn't the same and you know it.

If you find someone explicitly saying that and willing to legally backing up this kind of action (as the FSF does in the opposite way) it would be awesome.

I already did. It is called VirtualBox. There is another one, though, it is called "Quake". You might recognize it from the 1999 source code release, you might notice the WinQuake subfolder called "dxsdk" -- it is kind of important since you can't compile the project without it. Unsurprisingly, it happens to be included in the q1source zip [ftp @ idsoftware: ftp://ftp.idsoftware.com/idstuff/source/q1source.zip ).

---

Now, first as you probably know, there is nothing personal in me persisting in this thread.

But more importantly ... why continue in an argument that the facts have already demonstrated has already been "won"?

I can easily run up the score to any amount --- 10 to zero, 100 to zero, 1000 to zero or infinity to zero. What's the point? But the most important point is that the score of the counter-argument will always be zero.

[frag.machine]

Sooo .... uh, how is Sun Microsystems able to make GPL software that requires the DirectX SDK to compile?

The name of the software is only called VirtualBox (!).

^^^

That was a really bad example. From the VirtualBox license page (destacked portions by me):

Open Source VirtualBox and other editions ¶

After several years of intensive development, VirtualBox was released as Open Source in January 2007. innotek has chosen to release its VirtualBox source code under the GNU General Public License (GPL).

If you are interested in using VirtualBox -- either for private or business use --, you have the choice between two versions:

* The full VirtualBox package is available in binary (executable) form free of charge from the Downloads page. This version is free for personal use and evaluation under the terms of the VirtualBox Personal Use and Evaluation License.

If, instead, you wish to purchase licenses for enterprise use and/or enterprise support for VirtualBox, please do not hesitate to contact your Sun representative or buy online from the Web Store

* The VirtualBox Open Source Edition (OSE) is the one that has been released under the GPL and comes with complete source code. It is functionally equivalent to the full VirtualBox package, except for a few features that primarily target enterprise customers. This gives us a chance to generate revenue to fund further development of VirtualBox.

VirtualBox OSE is also available from the Downloads page.

Closed-source features ¶

The following list shows the enterprise features that are only present in the closed-source edition. Note that this list may change over time as some of these features will eventually be made available with the open-source version as well.

* Remote Display Protocol (RDP) Server

This component implements a complete RDP server on top of the virtual hardware and allows users to connect to a virtual machine remotely using any RDP compatible client.

* USB support

VirtualBox implements a virtual USB controller and supports passing through USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 devices to virtual machines.

* USB over RDP

This is a combination of the RDP server and USB support allowing users to make USB devices available to virtual machines running remotely.

Open-source features ¶

The following list shows the features that are only present in the open-source edition. The licensing conditions of the necessary libraries prevent inclusion in the full-featured product.

* Virtual Network Computing (VNC) Server

This component implements a complete VNC server on top of the virtual hardware and allows users to connect to a virtual machine remotely using any VNC client.

So actually we have a dual license here, and it's very likely that anything that could hurt the GPL (like the RDP, which is a proprietary protocol from Microsoft) was stripped from the OSE version but kept in the closed, non-GPL compatbile VirtualBox Personal Use and Evaluation License. I don't see any mistery or "incompatible license mixing" here.

Frag machine, the fat lady already sang. This argument has been thoroughly invalidated to the point that there is no longer anything to be discussed, quite frankly.

Well, the onus to proof your point of view is not mine.

And, just for the records, IANAL. Actually, I think it's a waste of time and effort to us to have to deal with this stupid mess called patent system when we just want to code for fun and learning. But that's how things works.

[Baker]

So actually we have a dual license here

And so is MYSQL.

and it's very likely that anything that could hurt the GPL (like the RDP, which is a proprietary protocol from Microsoft) was stripped from the OSE version but kept in the closed, non-GPL compatbile VirtualBox Personal Use and Evaluation License. I don't see any mistery or "incompatible license mixing" here.

The GPL version requires the DirectX SDK to compile. And the non-GPL version. This is just a single GPL application that uses the DirectX SDK ... there are hundreds, you know?

But I thought this one was the great example of an argument-ender. And it is.

Well, the onus to proof your point of view is not mine.

I've already cited examples far beyond any onus residing on "me". Virtualbox, Ogre, Quake ... ad infinitem.

Let me tell you, there is no onus on me. This argument was null and void from the start, I just happen to be the messenger in this particular thread but the argument was over before it began and it has jack shit to do with me --- but rather the argument was fatally flawed to start with.

And, just for the records, IANAL.

Well ... look ... there are the professionals and the armchair quarterbacks. As far as I know, there are no "professionals" participating in this thread but when companies like Sun and id Software are making source releases they do have lawyers.

I simply am not going to take legal advice from anyone in this thread that runs contrary to the practices of companies like Sun (Oracle) or id Software and such that actually do have lawyers.

It isn't "my point of view is right" but rather that all the facts and history happen to align with my point of view.

This isn't me "winning an argument" but rather me happening to have all the facts in my favor.

[Sajt]

But I thought this one was the great example of an argument-ender. And it is.

Baker, Baker, Baker. Jesus likes OGG Vorbis, Hitler likes MP3. Some old-timers resisted "denazification" for the rest of their sorry lives and fled to Argentina, but nobody took them seriously. Will you accept Jesus's file format before you die?

[Spike]

The directx _sdk_ is neither a system componant, nor a major compiler componant (as it is distributed separately).
If you want an up-to-date sdk, you need to either upgrade your compiler and use the headers+libs that came with that updated compiler, or dynamically link without using either headers or the libs of the sdk.
You can use the other tools in the SDK, just as you can use a GPLed GCC to compile proprietary stuff.

Regarding id and the dxsdk... id released their own code gpled. They didn't release any gpled binaries, and thus didn't link to dxsdk. As the licensors of the software, they really ought to have added an exception 'you may link against the dxsdk' would have clarified things quite a lot. Same with scitech's mgl, which is utterly vile, and must die regardless of GPL.
I'm not sure the dxsdk even allows you to redistribute like that. :s
With Q3 they had cleaned up their releases, and explicitly state the copyright of all non-gpled componants, including the parts that are GPL-compatible.

You should imho consider Quake as released under the GPL-with-exceptions, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to add more exceptions. Which sucks.

GPL is a bitch, in all honesty.
It also kinda mandates some kind of RCS.
LGPL is muuuuch better regarding licensing, but quake is not LGPL.

[mh]

I still don't believe that argument holds water. Surely if so, it would also apply to OpenGL (which wasn't included with the OS on original releases of Windows 95, and therefore doesn't come under the system library exception if your app is run on that OS).

In other words, you are talking boll-ocks sir.