forum.alglib.net

I have some concerns about whether ALGLIB is really GPL or not. I'm not suggesting there is any intensional breach of the GPL, but I think there is a technical breach.

From what I gather from

http://www.alglib.net/faq.php#b2dd41dc3 ... 024f3faa86

"AlgoPascal is a programming language developed for ALGLIB project. More than 95% of ALGLIB source is written in AlgoPascal and translated into C and C# by AlgoPascal translator. "

also the web page says:

"You can use/fork ALGLIB without AlgoPascal, but support/development costs will skyrocket. Without automatic translation each of the ALGLIB versions (C++, C# or other) must be supported separately, each algorithm must be implemented several times, each bug must be fixed several times again."


Now if we read the GPL version 2

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

it says:

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."

To me, that means the ALGLIB's source code (written in AlgoPascal) should be released, since thats what more than 95% of ALGLIB is written in. But as far as I can see, that is not the case.

I believe the fact the preferred method of modifying ALGLIB is using AlgoPascal, and the GPL says the source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it, then this puts ALGLIB in a very doggy position regarding the GPL.

Technically it might be legal to release the source code of ALGLIB, but not the translator, but offer to sell the translator for $1000000000000000000000000000000 That would mean the source is available (meeting the conditions of the GPL), but just happens to need a really expensive translator in order to do anything very useful with it. That would certainly not be in the spirit of the GPL, but might legally meet the requirements.

I know the FSF have quite a helpful licensing department (licensing <<ATT>> fsf.org) who will answer questions about licenses.

David Kirkby

I agree that at least it is against spirit of GPL. But I am not sure whether it is breach of GPL or not from legal point of view.

The question is what do you mean when you think about "preferred form". Having C++ or C# source gives you ability to support particular branch (C++ or C#) of the library. Translated source is a bit awkward, but not worse than internals of MPFR, GMP or other GNU project :) The problem is that you can support C++ or C# version, but supporting both at the same moment becomes too difficult without translator. Just imagine fixing all bugs twice, writing all code twice, etc.

I agree that working with AlgoPascal source is preferred, but - legally speaking - it can be worked around by saying that it is C++ or C# ALGLIB gets licensed under GPL, not its AlgoPascal clone. So the only form of work named "ALGLIB for C++" is the C++ source - again, from legal point of view.

In fact, I don't think that this issue is of high importance because:
* this clause of GPL was written in order to prevent free code from becoming closed (hey! you have EXE file, this is the Source Code you want; machine code is legitimate programming language!);
but we have opposite situation - new code is written and released in quite liberal form (compare with licensing terms of MKL, ACML, IMSL)
* there are legal workarounds
* the real problem is not breach of GPL - the problem is dependence of programming community on ALGLIB Project as the only company which can support ALGLIB library

So I want to solve problem of dependence first. I think that it can be something like KDE Free Qt Foundation - a foundation which will have right to release AlgoPascal sources (along with translator) under open source license in case something gets wrong (ALGLIB project gets acquired and stops making open source releases, etc.). I plan to contact Software Freedom Law Center somewhere in the first half of 2011 (too busy with some legal/accounting stuff to do it right now).

It is not the same as releasing everything to everyone right now, but I think that it will give Open Source Community enough confidence regarding ALGLIB future.