13 Mar
2015
13 Mar
'15
12:30 p.m.
On 13/03/15 10:41, Vicente Hernando wrote:
On 03/13/2015 10:19 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
As long as the
relation between the two apps is only socket
communication, I am not sure we can name one being a module for the other.
An example will be rtpproxy application which is controlled by kamailio
via some custom protocol over a socket. There is no restriction for
rtpproxy application enforced because kamailio is gpl. On the other
hand, the rtpproxy module in kamailio has gpl constraints because it is
linked (at compile time) against kamailio core.
It might be just different terminology that we use here, but referring
to the same concepts.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015
Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com
On 12/03/15 16:01, Vicente Hernando wrote:
IANAL either.
You are right in the web server - browser case, but it depends on the
coupling of the two applications.
E.g: you could not create a socket interface for Kamailio to plug new
propietary modules and distribute them under closed licenses
or create a proprietary app that configures via socket a GPL
application and without that the GPL application be unable to run. On 03/12/2015 01:45 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
By far not a lawyer, but as long as the communication is done via
socket, it means the application runs alone, not requiring the other
application to run at all. You can compare this situation like browser -
web server communication, the relation between them is socket
communication, but doesn't enforce that browser has to be gpl because
the server is gpl. On 12/03/15 06:16, Alex Balashov wrote:
> I am also not at all an expert in GPL licencing or IP, but would like
> to add that any customisation you make specifically for the
> purpose of
> interacting with a billing server or other external application is
> likely to take the form of a Kamailio module, rather than
> modifications to the existing Kamailio modules, the Kamailio core, or
> any other part of the stock code tree.
>
> As far as I know, under the GPL--broadly speaking, for I certainly
> don't know or remember the specifics--modules get different treatment
> than modifications per se.
>
> As far sa I know, if you can stick your code into [a] completely
> self-contained module(s) (and given what you've said about what
> specifically you want to accomplish, it seems to me that you
> absolutely can) that interact(s) with Kamailio using its module APIs
> and requires no modifications to Kamailio itself, it's not subject to
> the same licence constraints as modifications per se.
>
> Please do not take my advice as stated, and consult a competent
> software/IP attorney.
Modules have to be written in a GPLv2 compatible license, because
GPLv2
is 'viral' when linking the code, given that a module is using
functions
from core. If you do communication via socket/etc. with a different
application, that application doesn't have to be GPLv2 compatible.
I recommend
you to ask to FSF.
It is possible even when communicating via sockets to need to release
your code under GPL.
In my point of view the difference is if your program works OK as a
standalone application or if it needs the other
GPLed application to work. That works to defeat some ways to cheat GPL
philosophy.