--- Iain Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am concerned whether a Corba interface can be used by non-free > software to > circumvent the freedoms and requirements of the GPL license.
This is a similar issue as with the introspector. I dont aggree with your assessment any more. > I > realise "mere > aggregation" vs the definition of a copyright derived work is a > complex > scenario, so I will try to keep my posting generic. > > A proprietary vendor could create non-free software that functionally > would > amount to a derived work, without actually making a derived work > within the > meaning of copyright law. Would this break the spirit of the GPL > while > complying with its terms, hence not be enforcable under copyright > law? I dont think it will. > > I have seen the Corba 'serverizing' analogy discussed on this list, > and have > looked around the FSF website for clarification but I don't see any > position > statement from FSF addressing this issue. The nearest entry in the > FSF > GPL-FAQ is the "pipes and sockets" definition, which suggests this > form of > abstract inter-process communication is an acceptable mechanism for > GPL > software to interwork with non-free modules. basically this is the issue of creating a new front end and linking it in. Same issue with xmlrpc, same issue with serialization. not covered by the gpl. > > I've also read the earlier icense-discuss postings of Mr Perens, Mr > Stallman > and others regarding the use of Corba in this manner. The absence of > a > position from the FSF appears to be potentially damaging the GPL > community, > which risks losing freedom to the proponents of non-free software. There is no position because it is a losing positiion. > > > Here is an example of Corba 'serverizing': > > A GPL application is modified by a vendor of non-free software, who > adds a > Corba server API to the application. The vendor releases the source > code to > the GPL application and modifications per the GPL terms. like metawrap. like samba. like .. you name it. j2ee. > > The vendor then creates a non-free Corba client application which > uses that > API but incorporates none of the GPL code. The source code to the > client > application is not released by the vendor. Non-free applications > could also > be used as Corba servers to a GPL client application in the same > manner. This is the openess of the network. MySql maintains that this is linking and requires clients licenses, I think this is bogus. > > Essentially the freedom of the GPL codebase is reduced either way > around. I dont think the freedom of the codebase is reduced, i think that you are just pointing out that the freedom of the users is increased. This freedom of the users is a fair thing, and it has to be respected. The gpl is not appliciable to situations like this, because it is a EULA agreement that is needed to cover situations like that. mike ===== James Michael DuPont http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3