GPL Gets Its Day in Court in Israel 232
MadFarmAnimalz writes "In what appears to be the first court test for the GPL in the Middle East, Alexander Maryanovsky, the author of the GPL licensed Jin Chess Client is taking IchessU to court for violations of the GPL license."
Right.... bit of clarification (Score:5, Informative)
This is an executable and front end chess client.
This has been extended by iChessU to support a closed source DLL which adds new functionality (notably video streaming between players).
The source code to the Expanded client is available [ichessu.com] and providing you have the closed source binary DLL, you can run the newly compiled program.
Isn't this like me releasing a GPL program which is linked to the nvidia or ATI blobs?
Hell, isn't it similar if I write a GPL application which uses the Windows API?
I personally feel as though this is an overreaction, the ichessu site does not hide the fact its based on JIN and offers sources, or am I wrong and this is infact a genuine GPL violation?
No it's not (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't this like me releasing a GPL program which is linked to the nvidia or ATI blobs?It isn't, because ATI and NVidia do not link to the kernel. The portions of the NVidia and ATi driver that *do* link directly to the kernel (also known as the "kernel stub"), are indeed GPL. What happns, is the closed source X driver communicates to and from the stub indirectly, not via linking.
It's actually just a different DRM/DRI implementation, which nearly all X drivers use nowadays.
Note in this case DRM does not mean "Digital Rights management", it means "Direct Rendering Manager"
Re: (Score:2)
Thus, our graphics drivers don't appear to be GPL violations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
To be specific - I am pretty sure the drivers use either a UNIX socket or a named pipe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, none of the mainstream Web browsers (Opera, Mozilla, Firefox, IE, Konqueror, Safari) are licensed exclusively under the GPL. And even Epiphany, the GNOME Web browser, which is GPL, uses Gecko, which cross-licensed. I think there is some GNU FAQ somewhere that says that communication over pipes or sockets is okay.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but if a GPL web browser connected to it to view a web page, that would be causing Apache to be voilaitng withe GPL since it is communicating with a GPL app over a socket!
Umm, no. There is no distribution of software (especially not Apache) in the case you're describing, so the GPL is irrelevant. It's also irrelevant (in your case) for more reasons, but this is certainly the first one.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a pretty extraordinary claim, given that the graphics card drivers should be some of the highest-performance ones in the system. I would have thought that they, more than anything else, would require direct linking. Anyway, do you have a citation that supports your statement?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pipes, temp files, sockets, none of these are covered by the GPL. The GPL covers explicitly *linking only*. If a GPL'ed piece of software could not communicate with a closed source piece of software over a socket or pipe, the Apache web server would not exist.
Umm, could you clarify what you mean? Apache is Apache-licensed, not GPL, is it?
I also don't see where the GPL refers specifically to linking. According to my reading of the GPL FAQ entry on mere aggregation [gnu.org], if the two pieces communicate data whic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps that was just an unfortunate choice of words, or a small language barrier if you're not a native English speaker. However, unless your law works very differently to most, you can't force anyone else to licence their code in any specific way, including under the GPL. To say "the other piece is also covered
Re: (Score:2)
You are, of course, correct, but in my post I was already assuming that the owner of the "other" piece attempts to use the GPLed piece under the GPL, and discussing whether to do so legally would require him placing his piece under the GPL as well. If I wasn't clear in my post then I hope I am now :-)
Btw, the only GPL-compatible license (in the sense you're referring to) is the GPL, as it requires the entire application to be licensed under the GPL. Usually, though, when people say that a license "GPL-com
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, just wanted to be clear.
FWIW, I was thinking of things like dual-licensing when I mentioned being GPL-compatible. I guess technically that would be permitting two separate licenses, one of which happens to be the GPL.
Not pipes or sockets ... merely source (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been watching the kororaa [kororaa.org] project for a while, ever since we did one tandem session with XGL and OS X on two machines, watching XGL rule - especially in the video across cube faces demo. But a few weeks later, the developer announced that he's stopping Kororaa because of GPL issues with properietary drivers. And here's a reply by the FSF [kororaa.org].
Now, the point to note here is that GPL is redistribution license. The way the nVidia folks handle it is to give the user some code, a binary blob and effectively
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole model makes the user violate GPL in principle
Actually, since the end user doesn't distribute anything there is no violation there. So the end user is still in the white. Depending on the interpretation of the GPL Nvidia may be in a gray/black area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
nVidia clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
The Law of the Land gives you only very limited permission to copy a program (see "fair use" or "fair dealing"), and would ordinarily take a dim view of you distributing copies. The GPL gives you permission above and beyond your fair dealing rights (which are determined by the courts) to do certain acts dependent on certain conditions. One of the p
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally I don't see how the GPL can be violated here and yet we still have PC's shipping with GPL software on them.
Re:Right.... bit of clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
And in the license itself: "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
IMHO, that means Windows API = ok, Java API = ok,
And that makes sense. Otherwise I could just build all of my app in my "MainApp API" and GPL my "StartMainApp()" function call...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What happens if you release a GPL'd program with a plug-in API? That's fine.
Now you release a closed-source plug-in. That's not fine, since the plug-in is a derived work of the GPL'd plug-in system; it won't work without it.
Now, what happens if you license the plug-in API as a separate module under the LGPL (for example). The closed-source plug-in only depends on the plug-in module, which is LGPL'd. It inherits the GPL when use
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The DLL would be subject to the GPL if and only if the DLL is only useful with the GPL'd program. In other words, linking to "MyP2PLib.dll" that you really just wrote to work with your "FooP2P" application would not be okay, but linking to "msvc70.dll" (a standard Windows library) would be OK.
In technical legal terms, the test is whether the library is a "derived work" of the GPL'd program. Microsoft's dll would not ben a derived work because it wasn't designed specifically to work with FooP2P, but MyP2PLi
I don't think that's right... (Score:3, Informative)
That's not right...intentions have nothing to do with it.
You can license your code any way you want. If you want to license part of it as gpl, write a dll that is meant to work with your program only, but license it in a proprietary form, than release that stuff together with only the source code for the part that talks to the dll, you're fine. RMS would probably show up on your door holding a bat, but his lawyer won't be with him.
The license limitations don't limit what your gpl code can do, they lim
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that FSF is trying to pull a SCO here. Let me try to draw it:
GPL'd application
|
v
[di
Re: (Score:2)
What you seem to be saying is that Microsoft owns every ActiveX component ever written. ActiveX is a form of "plugin," and you are saying that plugins are derived works.
I object! And do not agree: a plugin is not a derived work of the plugin system.
Further, a point of order: the GPL does not define what it covers, really. Only the law does. The GPL covers whatev
Re: (Score:2)
Except of course that if it is your API/library, you own the copyright and are perfectly free to release it under more than one licence. That is, you can release a GPLed version, and a non-GPLed version that you incorporate into similarly closed code.
Re:Right.... bit of clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope.
Only part of the client source code is downloadable, not the whole; this is a violation of the GPL. Also, the iChessU has an EULA which violates the GPL by placing new restrictions on how the code may be used.
The bad faith negotations accusation may be an overreaction but it's hard not to think this when iChessU initially wanted to license JIN but backed out when it appeared too expensive for them and then proceeded to use it anyway.
This is not an overreaction but a devloper fighting to prevent a third party assuming legal control of that developers work.
But not a GPL violation (Score:2)
Lets just remember that you are supposed to claim copyright violation in court, not GPL violation. When the defendant says they have permission to redistribute your code, you ask where they got permission and let them point to the GPL. Then you point out how they have not lived up to their end of the
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this like me releasing ... isn't it similar if I write ...
No, because in those cases you are the original author, so you can license the code how you wish. The GPL includes a specific exception for OS libraries that covers the second of these already, BTW.
Re:Right.... bit of clarification (Score:4, Informative)
The process of installing the nVidia Kernel stub combines GPL and non-GPL code and compiles it on your machine. The resulting binary is NOT re-distributable under any licence. This is why Linux distributions do not come with the nVidia and ATI drivers built in, but you must install them separately.
This workaround works because the GPL only comes into effect when you copy a program not when you use it, as long as you are not copying (i.e. redistributing) the results you are not bound by its terms.
iChessU could use the same trick. Download the standard JIN source, download the iChessU patch and binary and compile them yourself - noone is copying the result, so the GPL is not violated. Though the resulting program contains GPL and non-GPL code and so can never be copied under any licence.
Further information (Score:5, Informative)
In the lawsuit, it is mentioned that in Israeli law (which I cannot confirm or deny, I have no idea) the minimal fine possible for this type of offense is 10,000 NIS (about $2250).
I can translate other parts of the Hebrew documents if anyone is interested.
Re:Further information (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Further information (Score:4, Informative)
Am I right in understanding that you want 11,000 NIS (about $2250) for each screenshot of your software that appears on their site?
10,000 NIS per screenshot, not 11,000. I realize it sounds funny asking damages for screenshots, but the Israeli law only allows between 10k and 20k of damages per violation. We are also suing via a legal "fast track" (otherwise it'd take years to get a decision) where we must ask for minimum damages. So, without the screenshot damages, I could be looking at spending the same amount of money on the lawsuit as the potential damages. Plus, after a couple of weeks of futile attempts to explain to Mr. Rabinovich that he is wrong, and him basically telling me to fuck off, you could imagine I'm a bit pissed and want to nail him for everything he has.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, thanks for the clarifications. And yes, I can easily understand how you would be justifiably pissed off here. I wish you luck in getting them to stop their infringing use of your GPLed code.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to talk to your attorney before you post public comments about your case. This is always a good idea when you have ongoing litigation.
Re: (Score:2)
As I replied to someone else, (in Israel) lawsuits are public information, and I'm not divulging anything here that isn't in the text of the lawsuit.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
It all depends on the manner of linkage (Score:3, Informative)
The reason for this "problem" or "benefit" (depending on your philosophy) is very simple. Dynamic linking is done against an interface, and interfaces cannot be copyrighted because they are the key mechanism for interoperability. There are decades of case law enshrinin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, the header file defines the interface, and the interface itself isn't protected by copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Right.... bit of clarification (Score:5, Informative)
I personally feel as though this is an overreaction, the ichessu site does not hide the fact its based on JIN and offers sources, or am I wrong and this is infact a genuine GPL violation?
Actually, there are several violations:
- IChessU's released source code does not compile, so it can't possibly be considered the "complete corresponding source code", regardless of the status of the audio/video library (which to the best of my understanding of the GPL is also covered by it).
- IChessU do not release their application under the GPL, but instead under a horrendous EULA [ichessu.com]. Read it, really.
- Although they do mention Jin, they don't mention my copyright. Instead it's "Copyright (C) [2006] [unknown]", as if they don't know whose copyright Jin is.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer (yet), but I take you're party to this suit. Do you really think you ought to be discussing your claim on a public forum prior to the hearing?
Re: (Score:2)
(according to my lawyer) all the information in a lawsuit in Israel is public knowledge - the text of any filed lawsuit is available to the public. I'm not writing here anything that isn't in the lawsuit, so I think I'm safe.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
Re: (Score:2)
Seemed like you were just restating what was in your claim. Hope you win this one, seems like someone is just taking advantage of open source software for their own gain.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong in taking advantage of open source software for your own gain. I do it every day when I use Linux. But yes, I know what you meant :-)
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be a philosophical question in some ways, but the fact that a binary compiled from GPL code is such a derived work should be pretty clear, so let's look at the "corresponding source code" side:
Re: (Score:2)
However, if the binary lib in question is optional, then no, it is no more a violation than people using binary video card drivers with the Linux kernel. Of course, the FSF attack bots who oppose that practice will probably want the defendant
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Clearly the fact that they asked to license the software and were refused (or offered a reasonable offer which they turned down) shows they were aware that it was GPL and wanted to license it under different terms. The fact they they went ahead and tried to bypass the license
Re: (Score:2)
This may be an issue with the GPL wording though, which leaves this loophole that can be exploited by proprietary developers.
Given that only the GPL gives them the right to exploit this loophole, and that a copyright holder can choose to license their software to whomever they want, can the author just terminate their right to license the code under the GPL? It's not like they've paid for it, so the author is not under any contractual obligation to allow them to exploit loopholes in the license.
you fool (Score:2)
Re:Right.... bit of clarification (Score:5, Informative)
In a way, this is very lucky timing for GPLv3 (Score:3, Interesting)
It's great that we will get the benefit of this ruling during the year when GPLv3 [fsfeurope.org] is being written. This sort of thing provides great suggestions for what should be clearer or worded differently.
Re:In a way, this is very lucky timing for GPLv3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In a way, this is very lucky timing for GPLv3 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, at least in the US, the law may as well be written in different language because even the law-makers don't generally unde
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you've never read a statute, or any case history then? Laws are already written in legalese, and correctly interpreting them often does require legal training. Sadly, ignorance of them is still not an acceptable excuse.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This mitigant layer is known as Latin, and is only spoken by academics that have never had actual sex with another human being. It is also spoken by various other institutions that seek to lend credence to their arguments based solely upon the perceived acceptance of Latin as the tongue of choice by institutions of higher learning.
Re:In a way, this is very lucky timing for GPLv3 (Score:5, Interesting)
There are very good reasons why this is impossible. Actually, what you are proposing is a very natural notion, that sadly turns out to be wrong. I say 'natural', because during the first third or so of the 20th century, philosophy (of language, in particular), was seeking exactly what you are driving at - a 'pure' language, free from ambiguity. This would have had benefits for legal matters, as well as philosophical ones, and even metamathematical implications. But this was shown to be a futile attempt (Wittgenstein being the major figure showing this). I'll briefly summarize why this is so.
First, when you refer to human-related things - as laws are, they mention e.g. 'assault', 'homicide', and so forth - there is no way to 'clean up' the language. It cannot be made unambiguous, because the underlying concepts are ambiguous. Try to define (as the famous example goes) 'game'. For any suggested definition, there are counterexamples (e.g. not all games are about winning or losing, not all games have scores, not all games are fun, etc. etc.). This is a simple consequence of the fact that life is complex - we use the word 'game' in many contexts, in many ways. Unlike in math, where we start with definitions, in the law we start with pre-existing human concepts and try to work with them. We therefore cannot arrive at unambiguous statements.
Second, and this is a more subtle issue, language is meaningless without a context of use. By this I mean, that if you see some scribbles on a page, they are worthless without someone to read them. A sentence + a reader are what is necessary for 'meaning' to exist. Thus, even if we write what we believe to be unambiguous text, we can never remove the element of the reader: for us, the statement is unambiguous, but for another person, with a slightly different mindset, it may not be so. You may claim that your interpretation is 'correct', but that will not avail you when a matter is put before the public, i.e. open to interpretation by many people, as the law must be.
Sorry to go on at length, but this is a fascinating topic for me.
Re: (Score:2)
While this is largely true, there are a number of ways in which the language could be significantly improved upon. Basically, all the nouns and verbs (and noun-/verb-derived adjectives/adverbs) that do not reference mathematically defined concepts are subjective in nature (
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing that few judges, laywers, or lay people understand Lojban ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban [wikipedia.org] ), there isn't much choice.
The key thing is, any language that has poetry and metaphor, is ambigious by its very nature because these things tend to create multiple meanings for a single noun or verb or phases. Any language with slang like "so hot it's cool" or "so bad it's good" (i.e. most languages) is also ambigious.
Since most popular lan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as law and ambiguity goes, you would think a simple statement like, "Thou shall not murder" is clear and precise. It is not. It leaves open to question for killing in self defense, killing for necessity, killing accidently, and k
Case rules can handle much of law (Score:3, Informative)
Several people have written objections to youe suggestion here, but computer-based solutions are easy to find if you use a reductionist approach and don't try to do *everything* mechanically.
The simplest and most powerful approach by far is to apply formal semantics by case, not by generic mathemetics: For each area of legal engagement, a large number of highly specific case rules are defined and given a priority to define the order
Re: (Score:2)
With laws written in English, there's the chance for an educated and (we hope) neutral judge to make bug fixes without needing the authority to rewrite the bug-free parts of the law.
Imprecision can also be good because the gaps it leaves give room for principles to work. Where libel law isn't explicit, then free speech
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, great, as if our current laws weren't bad enough, now we get to have them written in an unsaf
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
generous offer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This difference may not sound important, but it is. If the full rights were sold, then the original developer could no longer license others, and could no longer enfore the GPL on the code. (Only the copyright holder can do so.)
It's still cheap though.
GPL doesn't need to be tested. (Score:4, Informative)
What's being "tested", if anything, is copyright laws. And I believe that we all can agree on the fact that they are already, if nothing else, fairly tested in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GPL doesn't need to be tested. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it does. Or can you merge GPL code and non-GPL code in a single codebase? This is a restriction of how you can use the code you obtained through the GPL license.
Re:GPL doesn't need to be tested. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not a restriction that GPL adds: you never were allowed to do that in the first place. Suppose the code is not under any license, then standard copyright law applies. And copyright law does not let you copy that code to your code AT ALL.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it does. If YOU hold the copyright to that code, you could merge the code if you wanted--EXCEPT for the GPL. Same thing if you got permission from the copyright holder to do it. Software licensing is very, very common.
Re: (Score:2)
I read what you wrote, and it doesn't make any sense. If it's all your code, then you're not bound by the GPL - you're the copyright holder and can do whatever you want. If you get permission from the copyright holder of the GPL'd code, you can do it - the copyright holder can give s
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL gets struck down, this guy is still breaking copyright law then.
Re: (Score:2)
if it is your code you can merge whatever you like into it.
Nope. If both codebases are yours, you can do what you like with them, but if the copyright on one of them is owned by someone else, merging them constitutes preparation of a derived work, which copyright law prohibits without permission of the copyright holder.
That particular aspect of the law is generally pretty toothless -- how is the other copyright holder ever going to know what you did? If, however, the copyright holder was able to find
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here we go again... GPL doesn't need to be tested in court.
I think you are right in that it doesn't need testing in that sense. But a precedent does need to be set that if you violate the GPL, the court will punish you for it. Maybe if I win this lawsuit, the next IChessU will think twice before doing something like this.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky
Re: (Score:2)
However, any punishment will come from the fact that they've broken copyright laws, rather than the GPL.
I want to make it very, very clear that my comment was not directed at you, Sasha. It was directed at the myth (lacking a better word) that the GPL needs to be tested. I'm annoyed with the slashdot blurb for "supporting" that myth, but I'm definitely not annoyed with you for taking things to court. Quite the opposite, I wish you the best of luck.
Re: (Score:2)
You can use the vanilla software/code personally in whatever way you wish, but if you modify and/or redistribute it, then a whole bunch of restrictions come into play to define under what conditions you may do this.
Those restrictions make GPL'd software very profitable for anyone who uses more software than they write. It's an awesome deal if you really think about it...for the mere price of distributing a few lines of your own code you gain the rights to distribute millions of lines written by others.
Better Jin link (I'm the author) (Score:5, Informative)
I hope that's just a figure of speech (Score:2)
It's not illegal to violate the terms of a contract you never agreed to. If you take someone to court for violating your software license, then (unless you're unlucky enough to live in a jurisdiction that takes EULAs seriously) you'd better have their signature, a record of their online agreement, or something to prove that they agreed to your license.
If you don't have any of those things and you fe
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL is a copyright license, not a contract.
Section 5 of the GPL says:
How I would fight the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
If I wanted to write a program that integrated with GPLed software but did not want release my code under GPL, here is what I would do.
My strategy, instead of looking for loopholes in GPL's terms or figure out what is permitted, would be to completely avoid getting bound by the license. If I do not accept their license, then no lawyer is going to be able to make arguments about whether I complied or not. Don't fight on their terms. Don't let any of the text in their license be admissible or relevant.
The key to doing this, is to forget that the code you want to integrate with, is GPLed. Forget you have any extra rights that you might exploit. Assume that the code you're depending on has the tightest, most restrictive and hostile license that exists. Handle integration with a GPLed chess program, the exact same way that you would handle integration with Microsoft Excel. Ask for no favors other than whatever is allowed by copyright law.
To do that, the two major hurdles are:
If you can accomplish those two things, you avoid the license, and therefore it doesn't matter what kind of license it is, and it doesn't matter whether or not the terms of that license would permit whatever you're doing.
I'm not 100% sure what the legal definition of derivative work is, but I do know that you find out by asking your own lawyer instead of FSF's lawyer. As soon as someone at FSF starts talking about what they permit, you know they're talking about their license instead of copyright law. And you need to concentrate on copyright law.
One thing you can infer from the market overall, is that calling someone else's program does not make yours a derivative work. Even if you call the other work in a way that your program 100% totally depends on it and has zero worth without the other work, that doesn't make your program a derivative work. How do we know/infer this? From the proprietary software market. In spite of various projects like WINE, it's pretty safe to say that no Windows applications have any use outside of MS Windows. They simply don't run. If WordPerfect for Windows were a derivative work of MS Windows, don't you think Microsoft would have sued WordPerfect in order to squash the competition? Of course they would have. So don't worry about calling APIs.
And it doesn't matter how public the API is. Especially in the DOS days, there were all sorts of programs that did very intimate things to MSDOS's internal structures (e.g. disk managers, many many TSRs, etc) and nowdays on MS Windows you see some of this with the AV products. But surely McAfee's AV program is not a derived work of MS Windows. So don't worry about calling or the intimacy of calling. To avoid being a derivative work, just make sure you don't use any of the other guy's code.
Packaging. This is the tricky one. It's hard to sell a program that doesn't work on its own. The amusing thing here, is that with Linux, there are all sorts of packaging systems provided by the distributions, such as apt-get or emerge, that will solve this for you. If I wanted to write a proprietary program for Gentoo that depended on some GPLed stuff, it would be really easy to to just ship an ebuild that tells portage about the dependency, and it would get installed automatically when the user wanted to install my program. Then I wouldn't have to ship any of their stuff.
MS Windows (and MacOS AFAIK) doesn't have any sort of automatic generic get-and-install-all-the-dependencies program. (That makes it actually harder to defeat the GPL on Windows than on Linux.) Of course, you can probably just ship your Windows app with an installer than downloads and installs the dependencies, but support and maintenance would be tricky. And it would be
Re:The story by the developer, Alexander Maryanovs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
MOD ME UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)