Return to Answer

added 189 characters in body

Source Link

edited Sep 24, 2011 at 14:47

51.4k
13
127
178

That depends on how exactly your program is "using" the GPL program. The GPL FAQ has a rather long explanation, but it still leaves a lot open to interpretation:

You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. (...) However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program. (...) if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing. If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

I think in your example of a GUI that exists mainly to call a command line GPL program, the two clearly form a single program, so you'd have to release your code under the GPL.

That depends on how exactly your program is "using" the GPL program. The GPL FAQ has a rather long explanation, but it still leaves a lot open to interpretation:

You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. (...) However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program. (...) If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

I think in your example of a GUI that exists mainly to call a command line GPL program, the two clearly form a single program, so you'd have to release your code under the GPL.

That depends on how exactly your program is "using" the GPL program. The GPL FAQ has a rather long explanation, but it still leaves a lot open to interpretation:

You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. (...) However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program. (...) if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing. If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

I think in your example of a GUI that exists mainly to call a command line GPL program, the two clearly form a single program, so you'd have to release your code under the GPL.

Source Link

created Sep 24, 2011 at 10:56

Michael Borgwardt

51.4k
13
127
178

That depends on how exactly your program is "using" the GPL program. The GPL FAQ has a rather long explanation, but it still leaves a lot open to interpretation:

You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. (...) However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program. (...) If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

I think in your example of a GUI that exists mainly to call a command line GPL program, the two clearly form a single program, so you'd have to release your code under the GPL.