[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: making a non-GPLed module
- To: Oded Arbel <oded(at-nospam)geek.co.il>
- Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module
- From: Adi Stav <stav(at-nospam)actcom.co.il>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:01:32 +0200
- Cc: frodo(at-nospam)sharat.co.il, Linux-IL Mailing List <linux-il(at-nospam)linux.org.il>
- Delivered-To: linux.org.il-linux-il@linux.org.il
- In-Reply-To: <08da01c1789b$5dcb40b0$0500a8c0@sunflower>; from oded@geek.co.il on Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 08:02:02AM +0200
- Mail-Followup-To: Oded Arbel <oded@geek.co.il>, frodo@sharat.co.il,Linux-IL Mailing List <linux-il@linux.org.il>
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111290140040.19373-100000@frodo.sharat.co.il> <08da01c1789b$5dcb40b0$0500a8c0@sunflower>
- Sender: Adi Stav <adi(at-nospam)stav.org.il>
- Sender: linux-il-bounce(at-nospam)cs.huji.ac.il
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 08:02:02AM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <frodo@sharat.co.il>
> Cc: "Linux-IL Mailing List" <linux-il@linux.org.il>
>
>
> > OA>> If your binary that links against GPLed code (be it dynamic or
> > OA>> static "linking") does anything interesting and useful w/o using
> > OA>> the GPLed code (in your example - reading and composing mail),
> > OA>> then it is _not_ a derived work of the GPLed code.
> >
> > On my experience (based on observing some conversations with
> > Powers-That-Be in GPL) it is not exactly what they think. The example
> > pretty closely matches the case in question (no, it wasn't the mail
> > client, but the relation between main program and GPL-related part was
> > pretty close) and still it was alleged that the code in question doesn't
> > agree with GPL. Direct quote:
> >
> > That you don't distribute binaries does not change the fact that your
> > source code is designed to include <GPLed library> in the program. You
> > cannot do that, <...> your license is incompatible with the GPL.
> >
> > Note: code itself has no GPLed part and is not distributing any GPLed bit.
> > But the fact is is "designed to include" (meaning here "link against")
> > GPLed software - makes it bad.
>
> I do not think that the argument you describe will stand in a court of law.
> on two cases that I know, that were on the way to the court house, the
> parties eventually settled out side the court by the violating party
> agreeing to distribute the non GLPed code seperatly. in both cases the
> copyright owner of the code backed off after is was explictly stated by the
> violator that the product in question is no longer in violation because it
> does do something (even if it's a token effort) interesting and useful w/o
> the GPLed code in question.
> So this is the closest scenario that I am aware of to a court ruling, and
> twice it was solved that way.
>
> as another example, I'd give you the most obvious and used one - winamp
> plugins. several plugins are distributed under the GPL, which does not make
> NullSoft(AOL) in violation of the GPL,even though their software is designed
> to use ("link" against) code that is GPLed.
But WOULD make the plugins themselves undistributable. This is
reminiscent of the Debian/KDE/QT controversy (which never made it to
court because no copyright holder actually cared to sue.)
=================================================================
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