Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that contains two
source files: lib.c and main.c. [...] John A. publishes the
whole, named gnothing, under the GPLv2+, and never publishes lib.c
in any other way.
[...]
Evelyn D. Scent maintains a non-Free fork of bsdown called macrash, so
she takes this new release containing lib.c, merges the add-on
features she maintains, and publishes a new release, under the usual
restrictive EULA, known to be compatible with the 3-clause BSD
license.
No reason to ask - the people using the alternative licenses have no
need to agree to the GPL terms for the work as a whole that includes
GPL-encumbered parts.
And yet in this same e-mail you were claiming that the GPL would
somehow deprive people of the additional permissions granted by the
mBSD header, because of a misreading of section 2 that, per what you
say above, you don't really believe.
You only have to agree to the GPL requirements if you need the
permissions for modification and distribution the GPL grants. If you
don't agree, you aren't bound by its term. If you've received a work
containing some GPL-only and some dual-licensed parts and have no need
to distribute the GPL-only parts you might ignore the GPL, pick out a
dual-licensed piece, and build/distribute a work containing it that the
GPL restrictions would prohibit.
However, if you also modify or redistribute the GPL-only parts of that
work you must accept the GPL terms to do so. Then there is no reading
of the GPL that could avoid the conclusion that those terms require you
to apply the GPL to all parts of any derived works, no exceptions, or
you don't have permission to copy/modify any.
And the FSF does routinely claim that a dependency on
a non-GPL-compatible library is a violation if the functions are
unique and no GPL-compatible implementation exists.
Show me. I'm pretty sure you're getting it backwards: the case you
cited is one of GPLed library and derived program distributed under an
incompatible license. We're talking about GPLed sources derived from
non-GPLed libraries.
The actual problem in that case was with a different library, RSAREF,
covered by the now-expired RSA patent. It was considered 'munitions' at
the time and was export-restricted and not under the GPL. The main work
was released in source and might have been GPL'd or dual licensed but
could not because of this library dependency. And because gmp was
under GPL at the time (later changed to LGPL, probably because of the
bad publicity from interfering with free source distribution) it could
not be used with the non-gpl'd main program. It was impossible to
re-implement the needed functions from RSAREF because of the patent, so
the only solution was to re-write a functional clone of gmp called fgmp,
eliminating the GPL problem. Now for the really strange part: no one
ever actually used the fgmp library because gmp performed better.
However, since it existed and it was the linking user's choice which to
use, it was no longer possible to claim that the main work was derived
from the gmp library.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
