Blue2 and PM3 in closed source project - is that OK? (1 Viewer)

[Spragleknas]

I don't know all the details about Open Source GNU GPL, but I thought this section meant that it should not be closed:

Q: If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially?

A: You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.

These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.

Here is GB-PVR's version of Blue2:

... and PM3:

Is this project open source?

No sorry. GB-PVR supports open interfaces, but the core engine code is not publically available. You are able to develop your own plugins to extend GB-PVR, and there are several examples available to get you started. Plugins can be developed in C#, VB.NET or C++. Visit the forum and the wiki for more information

!!!: This thread is not a "look what they did!"-thread. Just curious about the usage of GNU GPL in closed sources. (I think I remeber that all XML-files created for MP is supposed to be GNU GPL, but perhaps the graphics is not?)

 

[phunqe]

Well I know for example that if you include a dynamically loaded GPL library into your commercial application, you don't have to open source it. You just need to make sure the you ship the library in it's original form and that users are able to link updated or modified versions of it (as long as it doesn't break APIs/compatibility).

I don't know if this somehow would apply to these skins, if they are considered "dynamically loaded". But in that case, you should be able to identify the skin files on the hard drive. You should also be able to replace them or modify them (as long as you follow an API of course).

I might be completely wrong though, but I'm sure I'll be slapped around in that case

 

[mruane]

I am sure that the skin's applied to a project (even if it is covered by GNU) are more than likely covered by a separate copyright which will belong to the developer of the skin. In the examples above, if the skin's developed for MP and GBPVR are from the same person - then no issue arises. If however, they are developed by different people and there has been no agreement between those two parties to use the skins, then an issue may exist.

PS Of course, the images used within the skin are a separate matter and each subject to their own copyright.

Cheers

 

[Paranoid Delusion]

I think the comment should be, who want's to argue over two free programs.

I have tried both (and occassionaly even now try GBPVR) but MP with it's overwhelming superiority, knocks the spots of it.

It may be a infringement of copyright in the eyes of lots of people, but as long as the actual images are concerned i believe if they are made by hand, and not actually a direct copy (which you can prove) then there is no problem.

Remember the people who actually developed these skins in the first place (believe Frodo "BlueTwo" Harley i know "PM111") are the people to get het up over this, otherwise this becomes another ebay issue, which the common answer is "so what as long as it's linked back to MP", which when you think about it, what is the first thing you see in config, "MP website links etc".

Sorry, pointless discussion with no outcome.

Only my thoughts.

Regards

 

[Spragleknas]

Sorry, pointless discussion with no outcome.

Only my thoughts.

!!!: This thread is not a "look what they did!"-thread. Just curious about the usage of GNU GPL in closed sources.