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

[Jeff Simpson]

On 4/6/06, Graham Wood <mythtv-users at spam.dragonhold.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:39:37AM -0400, Jeff Simpson wrote:
> > Now look at the big picture
> This is the step that is wrong.  The GPL covers the work itself, not the
> data generated - and this is a pretty fundamental step.  Or do you think
> that a company that creates maps has to release the maps as GPL if they
> use software that runs on Linux to capture the data?

True, the data isn't covered, and likewise, the MPG files aren't
covered (It would be amusing to see a program like myth try to claim a
license on something recorded off tv - the cable companies would have
a FIT!). But the database schema isn't exactly deliverable data - it's
what Myth uses internally to operate.

If this windows app were using the proper mythbackend protocol, it
would be considered a violation of GPL, right? Because the protocol
specs are considered part of MythTV. Likewise, the database schema is
also included, I would think. Logically, if this were done using a
mythweb screen-scraper, it would be free of that blame, but in my
opinion, since it is still accomplishing the same goal of integrating
with mythTV, it seems like it shouldn't matter what method it uses.

> I wouldn't agree with someone creating such a work, and charging for it
> (I've been ignoring this thread since I am not interested in such a
> product) but I would argue that it's not illegal.

Yeah, I was just throwing my thoughts on GPL interpretation out there.
I'm in no way implying that anybody is going to run off to a lawyer or
anything, I was just putting it out there as a "I think it goes
against GPL, be careful" sort of warning.

> I've also not looked too closely at the license model behind mythtv,
> since I'm not doing anything that could break any likely license, but
> neither the gpl nor the lgpl would apply.  In fact, the whole reason for
> the lgpl is to allow this sort of thing to be done!

Yeah, I should have read a little deeper into the GPL, it's very
case-by-case in its interpretation. Sounds like with enough work, you
can pretty much do anything you want and swing it so that it does not
violate the GPL. Instead of a code-patch, you could actually pull the
"data" out while it's in memory and re-inject it. Since data isn't
covered, you didn't really patch anything.

> Before I get flamed by people - let me repeat there are two points to
> this post:
> 1) The GPL is not relevant, unless the code of myth is required for the
> app to run - the data generated is not covered.

That's probably a good way of making the vague wording of GPL more
concrete. Interfacing does get a little hairy, though, since using
somebodys protocol doesn't require their "code" so much as the design.

> 2) I would personally not use something like that that required payment
> - since that would be really nasty to the people that have put in so
>   much more work already.

Agreed.