[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Legal stuf, GPL, ...





> What I heard (and please note, this was from a programmer, not a
> lawyer) 

Just a note:  I don't think that anyone's being a lawyer or not is
relevant.  AFAIK -- and I'd love to hear otherwise -- the GPL has not
been tested in court.  Thus, there are no REAL precedents on what can
or cannot be done with GPLed software.  So we can argue as much as 
we want, our opinions are more or less equally important.

>	about the GPL in such matters is that contrary to popular
> belief, if I use GPLed code *I need not make my code GPL*. What I
> *do* need to do is to make the code *freely available*, under any
> free license. This of course does not mean that I can change the
> license of GPL components I am using; it means *my* portions of the
> code need not be GPL (but do have to be free).

I don't see that at all.  To wit:  

	If identifiable sections of that work are not derived
	from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent
	and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its
	terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them
	as separate works.

(Where ``work'' is defined as ``either the [GPLed] Program or any
derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing
the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications
and/or translated into another language.'')  So far, so good...

	BUT when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
	which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the
	whole must be on the terms of THIS LICENSE.  [emphasis added]

It then goes on to exclude completely unrelated programs which are
merely distributed on the same media as a GPLed program.

In another message, wrt to an application using a GPLed component you
claimed that the ``app as a whole could be distributed, say, with the BSD
license''.  That's specifically incorrect for the BSD license which
has the great benefit of NOT requiring you to make copies of the source
code available.  It is further incorrect, I believe, because of the following
clause from the GPL:
	
	You may not copy, modify, SUBLICENSE, or distribute the Program
	except as expressly provided under this License.  [emphasis added]

It does indeed seem that if you only use a GPLed interface without 
actually including it in your program, you don't have to publish your
source code.  This will often look unprofessional, if not be impossible;
but OpenBSD does something similar to keep GNU bc(1) from printing the
announcement required by the GPL for interactive programs.

> The reason I am writing this post, though, is that the point I bring
> is often overlooked, and lots of Stallman-haters out there tend to
> yell about the viral tendencies of the GPL while these don't really
> exist (at least not in this sense).

Even if what you claim were true, there would still be a reason to,
um, disagree with Stallman.  The GNU GPL essentially claimed the word
``free'' to itself, while in fact it isn't.  If someone wants to keep
modifications of a GPL'd program to themselves, they can't.  That's not
very free.

=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il