Alexander Terekhov wrote: FSF's brief #37 in Wallace v FSF:
> In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software > copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the > GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed > under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based > on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on > a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other > work under the scope of this License." [... walter_oak_night's FSF GPL FAQ ... FAQ as Fact ...] Here's more. FSF's director and legal counsel Moglen speaks. http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL+-+page+2/2008-1082_3-6028495-2.html <quote> One of the questions with the GPL is about how tightly you may link GPL code with non-GPL code, for example, when you compile a GPL program and it uses other code in a software library. Have you done anything to define how tightly GPL code may be linked with non-GPL code? Under what circumstances is that permitted and not permitted? Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released. </quote> So much about "the GPL rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights". To quote day5done, <quote> The GPLv3 states: "2. Basic Permissions. All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the Program. The output from running it is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a work based on the Program. This License acknowledges your rights of "fair use" or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law." Anyone see the words "This License explicitly affirms your *unlimited permission* to run the Program"? When you link dynamically to GPL'd code you are "running" (executing) the GPL'd Program in every sense of the word. The linked code is object code that is executed in memory. Moglen states: "We reasserted that code dynamically linked to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released." Since when does "unlimited permission" mean "--is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released."? I thought "unlimited permission" meant "unlimited permission". Hmmmmm. Perhaps Eben Moglen is drooling down his Gerber bib again... Somehow your proprietary object code being executed in memory is magically transformed into GPL'd source code. -- Sounds somewhat like SCO claiming "all your code is mine". Do you suppose the wife and kids also get GPL'd? </quote> Now, back to quoting the Defender of the GPL: <quote> One specific area where the linking question arises is in the Linux kernel, where proprietary video drivers loaded are loaded as modules. Another one might be the use of a network driver that relies on proprietary firmware that is loaded from an operating system. (Such firmware, sometimes called "blobs," are strings of hexadecimal digits loaded from the operating system kernel into the hardware device to enable it to run.) Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. </quote> I just wonder under what "impure" GPL license terms do you think Moglen thinks ("in all good faith") the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space). Any thoughts? Even if you have any, then how does that play out regarding what the FSF is telling to the judge in Iniana... http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050622221934277 "The GNU/Linux operating system is probably the best known example of a computer program that has been developed using the free software model, and is licensed pursuant to the GPL." ^^^^^^^ <?> regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss