tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2517163339228276651.post4596245049246442365..comments2018-01-22T04:32:16.967-08:00Comments on Stuck In Windows: FUD Over JavaScript and GPLRene Saarsoohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622685604363326722noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2517163339228276651.post-40858395965150282642018-01-13T04:12:46.995-08:002018-01-13T04:12:46.995-08:00greatgreatfor ict 99https://www.blogger.com/profile/01234222908168002434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2517163339228276651.post-84131247430225080992017-03-22T04:38:06.547-07:002017-03-22T04:38:06.547-07:00It‘s actually a nice and useful piece of informati...It‘s actually a nice and useful piece of information. I am glad that you shared this useful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.<br /><a href="http://www.customer-help-number.com/windows-support.php/" rel="nofollow"> Windows Helpline Number </a>US +1-844-442-0111 Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02017896802836256117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2517163339228276651.post-83710742837674224452013-05-17T12:29:08.369-07:002013-05-17T12:29:08.369-07:00I agree. It IS distributing. However I wonder: the...I agree. It IS distributing. However I wonder: the spirit of the GPL is (used to be??) to allow the user to modify the source code, so that she isn't "locked" with the vendor's (here: website's). I note that 1) even obfuscated, the received JS is still source code, so she could modify it; 2) the website doesn't link the scripts together, the user's browser does. So, technically speaking, she isn't locked with the website code, she has the means to replace it with her own even if non-GPL JS code uses GPL JS code -I believe-. I think that compares to using dynamic linking libs that are GPL, within a non-GPL app, but IANAL. Well I hope I'm correct because I found "Apache" or "BSD"/"MIT" licensed open source projects that make use of GPL (not LGPL) JS in an non-obvious way (perhaps developed by license-illiterate developers), thus if I'm wrong every organization using those would potentially be at risk!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2517163339228276651.post-72763903538962144712012-07-05T15:04:40.017-07:002012-07-05T15:04:40.017-07:00"GPL will only concern you, when you want to ..."GPL will only concern you, when you want to distribute your software. And running a website powered by GPL-licensed software is not distributing."<br /><br />No not a website software that runs on your server. But your javascript needs to be downloaded to the users browser, aka distributed. You are misinformed and comparing apples to eggs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2517163339228276651.post-85575840761904602952009-02-09T01:36:00.000-08:002009-02-09T01:36:00.000-08:00Are you saying, that you cannot use GPL software o...Are you saying, that you cannot use GPL software on a commercial website?Rene Saarsoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03622685604363326722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2517163339228276651.post-15024003065044013222009-02-08T13:43:00.000-08:002009-02-08T13:43:00.000-08:00The confusion over GPL is not by FUD, but by the u...The confusion over GPL is not by FUD, but by the users that apply the license. It's up to the license holder to enforce the terms. Just because jQZoom says "You can have your jQZoom in your website, eCommerce sites or whatever you want." does not mean you don't have to abide by the terms of the GPL. Any IP attorney is going to say this is too vague, you cannot use this software unless they have an alternative license (ie Commercial, or more permissive license). <BR/><BR/>More importantly, the fundamental issue is not whether you need to GPL your code, but that you might have to PAY to keep your code private. <BR/><BR/>Its seems pretty hypocritical to talk about freedoms, when the freedom they (the ones that dislike the GPL) wish to have, is not about the code, but rather the ability to commercialize someones work for free.<BR/><BR/>This is not a "free"dom that is granted by the GPL. The GPL could care less about the user's intentions. It's the CODE that must be free (as in freedom).<BR/><BR/>Ext JS is a great piece of software, and those looking to implement it in a non opensource fashion, have the ability to purchase a license to support Jack and Co. This is "fairdom" amd "freedom" - for commercial ventures and for the code.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com