On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:39:59AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > One thing that is clear in the GPL: If you link the kernel with something
> > else to an executable, the resulting blob (and therefore the
> > sources to the
> > proprietary part) must be GPL.
>
> Actually, that is *far* from clear.
>
> First, the GPL cannot set its own scope. The GPL could say that
> if you stored a program in the same room as a GPL program, the
> program must be GPL. So *nothing* the GPL says will answer this
> question -- the question is, can the GPL attach by linking?
>
> The contrary argument would be that linking two programs
> together is an automated process. There is no creative input in
> the linking process. So it does not legally produce a single
> work, but a mechanical combination of the two original works.
>
> The proof that the executable is not a work for copyright
> purposes is this simple -- could a person who took two object
> files out of the box and linked them together claim copyright in
> the new derivative work he just produced? I think the answer
> would be obvious -- the executable is not a new work, it's just
> the two original works combined.
[snip]
Ahhh, but you're missing the whole point of the GPL. The GPL is
not really a normal license, it's a copyright license. Basically,
copyright law doesn't allow you to do *anything* with someone elses
work without permission. The GPL grants you such rights.
However, in exchange for this, you agree to follow the license when
redistributing your software that you built against the GPL:ed
software.
So, in essence, *if* you choose to redistribute your work, you must
abide by the GPL. And the GPL tells you to GPL your work too, if it
falls within the scope that the GPL defines. It thus have nothing
to do with whether the programs are a mechanical combination of
two original works or not. The only point where this comes in is
where the GPL defines its scope.
Thus, if the GPL said that all programs distributed on the same CD
as a GPL:ed program needs to be licensed under the GPL, and you
redistribute your software on that CD, you must license your software
under the GPL, unless you want to be in violation with the license.
Again, I'm not a lawyer...
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
