On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 09:50 -0400, Sean wrote: > > They claim that distributing a program that uses a gpl'd library > > is a copyright violation even if it does not include the library > > in the distribution. There is no other way to describe that > > besides stopping the distribution of another person's original > > work. > > No, that is a legal determination. It would seem that legally the > "original work" of which you speak is actually a derived work. But > I don't know the specifics. It is the FSF's interpretation that anything that needs a GPL'd library to function is a derived work of that library even when distributed separately . I'm sure that with sufficient funds you could find well-trained lawyers to argue either side of that case, but it sounds like insanity to me that you can violate a copyright without copying the material in question. Or that whether a violation exists or not depends on whether or not a functionally equivalent library exists under a different license, something that none of the parties involved might not know and that could change without their involvement or knowledge. > What's your point? That there _might_ be a law that might cause > a legal problem for someone using Linux? Sorry, but that's true > for just about anyone using anything. The point is that unless all parties that ever contributed can be identified and agree, the GPL can't be revoked so if there are ever any constraints on needed components, none of that work can ever be distributed - even for end users that agree to the terms of the component in question. This is very much different from a corresponding situation with proprietary software where you can make your own choices and arrangements with any vendor separately. > > Having to pay doesn't automatically prevent someone from using > > something. It just is another factor in your choices. The GPL > > restrictions simply take away your choices. > > Well, IBM might not even be willing to license that technology > to anyone, or maybe would do so at a prohibitive cost that effectively > makes it unavailable to anyone else, removing it as a practical choice. Why would anyone price something at a point where no one would buy it? Its possible, of course, but competition takes care of that issue. Our big problem is permitting a monopoly to eliminate competition, and the GPL has played a big part in helping that to happen and continue. > BTW, the GPL doesn't take choice away from anyone. Nobody is forced > to base their work on a GPL library or other GPL software. And obviously > it can't be all that bad... you use GPL software! That's an endorsement > the belies your words. If you have read any of what I have said so far you would realize that the problem I'm point out is that GPL'd work cannot be used in many situations. Obviously I do like free software and would like more of it to be usable in more situations. Since your solution always seems to be "don't use GPL'd software" I guess you don't agree. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
