On 2006.2.21, at 04:20 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
Don Bedsole wrote:
Hi,
Ok, taking the LGPL and GPL at face value,
... or not, as the case may be, ...
with what seems to be
their intended interpretations, and presuming that the courts
would actually enforce what they seem to say, and AIUI...
Ok, I have to admit, I have not been playing close attention to this
discussion, but what I have seen has raised a question for me. I
would like a clarification. Do I, as an end user have the right to
install non-GPL software (e.g. RealPlayer) on my Linux box if it
links to GPL software? Can
Yes. AFAICT, no restriction is placed on the receiver of bootleg
bootleg? Do you mean to imply the GPL is a means of stealing someone
else's intellectual property or something?
applications by either GPL or LGPL. OTOH, IANAL, and there may
be *other* precedent which applies to such recipients.
???
I install non-GPL software which links to anything it wants to on my
computer?
With all caveats, yes. But remember, someone who knowingly receives
stolen goods is known as a "fence" and commits an offence. I do not
know what collateral effects there may be. But AFAICT, neither
LGPL nor GPL prohibit that.
fah -- more gratuitous talk of stolen goods. Maybe it is you who wants
to steal someone else's hard work?
> Is it legal for non-GPL software distributors (RealPlayer, et. al)
to furnish software to me which links to GPL software? Wouldn't it
only be a
NO. This is precisely what is prohibited by GPL, and as I read it,
also by LGPL.
He did not say _linked_, he said _links_. Can you read English? If it
is distributed linked to GPL-ed software and is not licensed
compatibly, that would be against the implicit contract of the GPL, but
not necessarily the LGPL. If it is merely possible to link, that is
explicitly allowed by the GPL. See the mention in the GPL of the header
files if you don't understand why that would be.
There is a gray area involving distributing both the software which can
be linked and the means to automatically link them without user
intervention. (And that's the fine line FreeBSD gets ever so close to.)
problem if I were to somehow redistribute the non-GPL--GPL software
combination? In other words, can non-GPL distributors (again
RealPlayer for example), give me whatever software they want to,
which links to whatever it wants to, as long as I, the end-user, do
not distribute the resulting GPL-non--GPL combination? Thank you.
No, they cannot. This is precisely what the GPL, and AIUI the LGPL
prohibit.
And once again I must point out that your opinion is in direct
contradiction with mine, unless you know of specific things which, say,
RealPlayer is distributed pre-linked against, or, I suppose, if you
know that RealPlayer is using some automatic linking mechanism that
goes beyond the Linux link editor.
I hope you are over the sinus and the fevers, but if you've got the
time to be posting such opinions, get the time to read up on copyright
until you understand that software which is written to an API is not
publishing either the API or the library which implements it.
