[mythtv-users] TapeWorm Beta 4 - new features, and now, fewer bugs!

[Jo Shields]

Jeff Simpson wrote:

>>>Plus, I'm pretty sure GPL doesn't technically allow that - TapeWorm
>>>wouldn't operate without Myth, and thus it's using Myth as part of its
>>>system.
>>>      
>>>
>>This is plain silly. For a start it doesn't even connect to Myth at
>>any point. This program only connects a mysql database and then a
>>samba share.
>>    
>>
>
>Compare it to a binary patch. If somebody were to create a new feature
>for myth and sell it as a linux binary patch that attaches to Myth,
>that would obviously be a violation of GPL since it is using Myth,
>right? Now look at the big picture - that app is binary and also uses
>myth - just because the connection is technically Samba and MySQL
>doesn't mean that it's not a patch that adds onto the myth system. It
>doesn't connect DIRECTLY to myth, but it does connect to the myth
>database and myth directory structure. Just because those are
>accessible doesn't mean that it's free reign.
>
>By itself, that TapeWorm program doesn't function - it requires Myth
>to operate. The connection it makes to Myth via MySQL and Samba had to
>be coded by either A). Reading Myth souce code, or B).
>reverse-engineering by looking through the database.
>  
>

Which is exactly why this is perfectly fine - as long as the latter 
option, not the former, it taken. You name Samba specifically - but why 
not say "Samba is covered by an MS EULA, because it does stuff relating 
to MS software, and was reverse engineered from it"? Seems to be the 
argument you're making. See 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF

This is only a GPL violation if Myth code has directly been integrated 
or used as a direct basis for a non-GPL application. Stopping this kind 
of thing would be the same as stopping Samba, OOo .doc compatability, 
and so on.