mailinglists@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 07:49 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:04, Erwin Rol wrote:
> So GPL zealots, as you call them, can implement libraries that are
> compatible with other libraries, without violating anybodies copyright.
> And they can put libraries under the GPL and force you to follow that
> GPL when you use their libraries. You, of course, can reimplement those
> libraries too if you want and put them under a different license.
And you'll know they are zealots when they make the claim (which
they officially do...) that you are violating their copyright if
you distribute an executable that might link to a GPL'd library
even if you don't include *any* GPL'd code in your distribution.
Does your application work without the GPL library? No? So your
application _needs_ someone else his copyrighted work to function. So
you _need_ the work someone else did to make money? And you _demand_
that it comes for free and gratis! If you don't like the GPL license of
the library, rewrite it, nothing stops you from doing that.
(An exception exists if you can prove that there are compatible
non-GPL'd libraries - which is pretty bizarre, since that in
no way affects what is being copied in your distribution or
how they might claim ownership of it).
It all comes down to; i want your work gratis, so i can make money with
it. And if you dislike that i call you a yealot and bitch and complain
that it is unfair.
Can someone please point me to the law that says "you are forced to use
GPL software" since apparently some people feel they are forced to use
this unfair GPL license.
- Erwin
and also wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 07:33 -0700, David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)
wrote:
mailinglists@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The point of the goose/gander paragraph is simply linking to someone
else's code does *not* contaminate your code with their license. Lots
of talk and FUD about this but linking doesn't foist a license since the
headers and interface (which aren't protectable elements) are all that
is copied. Just because you program uses a GPL library *does not*
contaminate it. As an example, I somehow doubt that an Oracle
implementation running on Linux makes no use of GPLed library or system
calls. Same for VMware and lots of other proprietary software that runs
on a Linux platform.
Linking is a "technical" term and is not of importance for the license,
the more legal term is "deriving". If your work is derived from GPL work
you have to put your work under the GPL (or compatible license).
For Oracle running on Linux, I would love to know what GPL libraries
they use? I bet the don't use any GPL library, they will use LGPL
libraries like the C-Library. The same with VMWare, I believe their GUI
is now GTK based, and GTK is licensed under the LGPL.
For the Linux kernel, the copyright holder clearly stated that running
programs in userspace on top of the OS does not count as "deriving", and
hence those programs do not have to be GPLed simply because they can run
on Linux.
Again, IANAL, but I find the argument that the library somehow gets
"included" in the program to be totally bogus as long as said library is
a shared object that is still normally distributed. This argument might
be made for static libraries or if you literally copy and compile the
code but that's a different animal.
Once again you are mixing up "linking" and "deriving". The fact that a
library is a shared object or "source included" does not change the fact
that your product is derived from that library code or not. A good
indication seems to be if your program would also function without the
GPL library, and i bet it will not.
The easiest way out is "if you don't like it, don't use it", it really
is that simple.
- Erwin
Sorry, but not from the perspective of copyright law (which is all that
matters). Copyright law does not recognize including a library as
making the including work a derived version. Lots of case law
establishing this so don't argue with me about whether its right or
wrong. If you want it to work differently work to change the law but be
careful about it since there are lots of other folks like Microsoft and
SCO that would also like to be able to impose a license on anyone who
writes code for their systems.
The only way copyright law recognizes a derived work is if someone
*modifies* the copyrighted work of another. Thus, if I modify a GPLed
library for my own purposes and distribute a program that includes the
modified GPLed code, I am bound by the terms of the GPL for my modified
library. If I write some software that works with an established
interface and someone happens to run a copy of my program on a system
where the functionality implementing that interface happens to be GPLed
code, I am under no obligation to suddenly GPL my program. More
specifically, I may write some code that will compile on Solaris, HP-UX
and Linux and use a variety of run-time libraries that are common to
*nix systems, why because this program also happens to compile on Linux
would I be obligated to GPL my code?
Cheers,
Dave
