** Jeff Licquia :: > On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:14 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > > I find this discussion ultimately absurd. Debian is *not* > > distributing a derivative work. Debian does *not* distribute a > > work that includes both plugins/libraries. The fact that the > > things are (dynamically) linked at run time, especially combined > > with the fact that the plugins are opened with dlopen() and use > > stable API, is *more* than enough to lift any (inexistent IMHO) > > "no-link" requirement of the GPL. > > I find most of this response confusing.
Yes, it is. I was ranting, because this discussion makes me see red. I apologize. > First of all, it's clear that Debian *is* distributing a derived > work based on GPLed libraries, called "Debian GNU/Linux". The First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work has a definition in the statute (in the US case, 17USC). > specific case in question may fall under the "mere aggregation" > clause of the GPL, but then this is the point you should argue. I The last paragraph holds, independently of the "mere aggregation" value. > abhor imprecision in these discussions, as they are the breeding > ground for all kinds of myths and speculation. (Not that I am > immune to imprecision, or that I am not occasionally a myth-monger > in my own right. But I welcome the correction.) > > Second, you seem to be asserting that an app and its dynamically > linked libraries do not constitute a derived work based on both > for the purposes of the GPL. Rather than debate this point, I Yes. There is no derivative work status on the program that uses a library. I and M.K.Edwards, in the last 3 months or so, have brought a lot of arguments and case law to this extent to d-l, and my own and humble conclusion is that: especially in the case of dynamic linking (and more so in the case of dlopen()ing), the distribution by debian of both a program A and a linking-to-A B.so is subject only to the *separate* compliance to the terms of both A and B.so, independently of any terms applied only to derivative works of A or of B.so. > think it best to point out that this runs counter to accepted > precedent within Debian that dates back a long time; see the > KDE/Qt controversy for a famous example. Basing conclusions on > this past precedent is not "absurd"; indeed, it would seem that > the onus is on you to prove your assertion. I do not have enough time right now to answer properly (ie, with the links to the discussions, examples, and caselaw that I, amongst others, presented here on d-l), but I trust that you can find them if you are interested. As I said two paragraphs above, I consider that I presented all my arguments in this direction, and (to me, at least) I consider my point proven. > That's probably enough for starters. If I am indeed confused and > you are correct, then there doesn't seem much point to proceed to > the dlopen() question. Ok. -- HTH, Massa