1

Topic: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

The program I spread free of charge. I wrote it for  the decisions and for the abstract. Well and that, as that to pay back expenditures, I use donations of users and sponsors. The profit practically is not present, hardly a hosting I pay back. In a program I use already assembled dll units of other vendors which are spread under GPL the license. Therefore, by their rules, I too should give the program under GPL and consequently, to open the codes. I of it would not like to do. The reason is banal: - it would not be desirable to highlight some decisions which I use in . Projects - me the toad presses to expand a place on a site, to allocate source codes, it is more 1  byte which to very few people are necessary. Perhaps who prompts, as it can be bypassed. The variant to address to developers of these  for the exclusive license I will leave on the last case.

2

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

Hello, Vicul, you wrote: V> Perhaps who prompts, as it can be bypassed.  other libraries which implement similar functionality, but under more liberal license. V> a variant to address to developers of these  for the exclusive license I will leave on the last case. 80 their % cannot make it even if want because they used another's GPL th code, and now it is impossible to understand, what part of the code belongs to them (and can be licensed on alternative conditions) and what does not belong to them, and authors will not reach. Well and that someone such free of charge wanted, to me and generally to invent difficult.

3

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

There is still a variant - a program to tire out under GPL, and source codes on , to allocate, as the unoperated code. But it would not be desirable it to do

4

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

If basically not against to give source codes - give them on demand. On a site to spread them you forces nobody. With a high probability of any request never will be.

5

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

Hello, vsb, you wrote: vsb> If basically not against to give source codes - give them on demand. On a site to spread them you forces nobody. With a high probability of any request never will be. As a variant it is possible on  to throw out that part of the code which uses GPL

6

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

If you the linguistic data base did not modify source code GPL and not  statically, and they at you are connected dynamic - that not  for  confidence can make a functional on these GPL  independent, and  dynamic  at their presence in a folder of the program and to spread their separate archive

7

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

Some GPL  have the commercial license, look esteem on everyone them them

8

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

Hello, reversecode, you wrote: R> if you linguistic data bases did not modify source code GPL R> and not  statically, and they at you are connected dynamic - that not  R> for  confidence can make a functional on these GPL  independent, R> and  dynamic  at their presence in a folder of program R> and to spread their separate archive Certainly did not modify, stupidly downloaded these dll and dynamic them I connect. Source codes them are not necessary to me. Thanks for council!

9

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

Hello, reversecode, you wrote: R> some GPL  have the commercial license, look esteem on everyone them them there hardly. -, I use  LAV Filters which sit on ffmpeg dll-kah that too go under GPL

10

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

Hello, Vicul, you wrote: V> Certainly did not modify, stupidly downloaded these dll and dynamic them I connect. V> source codes them are not necessary to me. Thanks for council! Whether here a question in that you store files in a fitter or not. If they a fitter part badly put. And here if the fitter asks the user to come on a site and most to download that there are no problems. Thus the program should work and without these dll-ek.

11

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

Hello, reversecode, you wrote: R> and  dynamic  at their presence in a folder of program R> and to spread their separate archive It it is possible, if the license of linguistic data base LGPL (instead of GPL) or they are not an essential part of functionality, that is if the program and without them works and basically does that is necessary, and alternative libraries if is, only expand a functional.

12

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

M> It is possible, if the license of linguistic data base LGPL (instead of GPL) or they are not an essential part of functionality, that is if the program and without them works and basically does that is necessary, and alternative libraries if is, only expand a functional. About an essential part nonsense about LGPL yes, it is necessary  with  keys and  without being afraid in practice on this all hammer

13

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html https://video.stackexchange.com/questio … al-product

14

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: M> Hello, reversecode, you wrote: R>> and  dynamic  at their presence in a folder of program R>> and to spread their separate archive M> It it is possible, if the license of linguistic data base LGPL (instead of GPL) or they are not an essential part of functionality, that is if the program and without them works and basically does that is necessary, and alternative libraries if is, only expand a functional. Basically yes, they add additional properties to the program

15

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

Hello, reversecode, you wrote: R> https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html R> https://video.stackexchange.com/questio … al-product I in course, but here such piece - not all goes there under LGPL, there 264 codec in GPL. If I am going to spread the product (commercial/noncommercial) with this library with the closed codes, I mean should buy the commercial license ffmpeg. That Mahlo, after purchase these libraries should collect itself with a key - disable-gpl. We admit c ffmpeg I will solve, so Lavas filters already go under GPL. More shortly, problems rise, as a snow clod that already to a fig for a noncommercial product. While I see the following decision - a program under GPL, the codes with functional restriction, there where I use GPL libraries, on .

16

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

Under GPL only a few filters instead of all there get how much I see all in  projects  with - enable-version3 - enable-nonfree i.e. GPL3 too is compatible with  for x264 too much  when and as it is possible  on a freebie but also the license of copeck costs to mine

17

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

V> Perhaps who prompts, as it can be bypassed. Decided to do so - a program under GPL, the codes with functional restriction, there where I use GPL libraries, on . All thanks for the help

18

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

Hello, reversecode, you wrote: R> if you linguistic data bases did not modify source code GPL R> and not  statically, and they at you are connected dynamic - that not  R> for  confidence can make a functional on these GPL  independent, R> and  dynamic  at their presence in a folder of program R> and to spread their separate archive Truly only for LGPL, but also for this license there is a subtlety. If this or this (these) library provide a principal functional of your program even working with LGPL libraries your code upon gets under this license. GPL is even easier, all your code becomes GPL

19

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

Hello, Vicul, you wrote: V>> Perhaps who prompts, as it can be bypassed. V> decided to do so - a program under GPL, the codes with functional restriction, there where I use GPL libraries, on . To divide the code on two parts? To make the program under GPL with open source codes,  all how it would be desirable. "The Confidential" part to let out a separate product and to load from the main.

20

Re: GPL the license in the noncommercial project

MQ> to Divide the code on two parts? MQ> to make the program under GPL with open source codes,  all how it would be desirable. MQ> "the Confidential" part to let out a separate product and to load from the main. As I understood - in the beginning goes  a principal program under GPL, further the user I notify - whether he wants to install some units for additional functionality. - the second further boots  already with other license. Truly?