On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 15:02, Dom Lachowicz wrote: > This is my point - I can link GPL AbiWord with non-GPL Link *without* > modifying Link's license if I use it via a plugin. I've modified the > plugin's copyright from GPL -> GPL + Exception
You can do this, if the AbiWord plugin is called as fork+exec
Otherwise, no. I didn't even see an exec on the plugin's source
> >From my understanding, this does *NOT* require the whole of AbiWord to
> be released under GPL + Exception.
> 1) The plugin is a dynamically loadable module and separate from AbiWord
> as a whole
Does it not link against AbiWord and includes AbiWord header files?
As it clearly does...
// Abi includes
#include "xap_Module.h"
#include "xap_App.h"
#include "xap_Frame.h"
#include "fv_View.h"
#include "ap_Menu_Id.h"
#include "ev_Menu_Actions.h"
#include "ev_Menu.h"
#include "ev_Menu_Layouts.h"
#include "ev_Menu_Labels.h"
#include "ev_EditMethod.h"
#include "xap_Menu_Layouts.h"
... so no: the plugin is a dynamically loadable module NOT separated from
AbiWord as a whole.
> 2) The plugin is released under a GPL-compatible license (GPL +
> exception), so AbiWord's GPL code can call the plugin and the plugin can
> call AbiWord's GPL code
Read very carefully what it says on #WritingFSWithNFLibs. I am going to
paste it here (with | on the beggining so you can distinguish my
comments)
| I am writing free software that uses non-free libraries. What legal
| issues come up if I use the GPL?
|
| If the libraries that you link with falls within the following
| exception in the GPL:
|
| However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
| not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source
| or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so
| on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
| that component itself accompanies the executable.
|
| then you don't have to do anything special to use them. In other
^^^^^^^^
| words, if the libraries you need come with major parts of a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^##########################
| proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your
^^^^^^^^^^^^################
| program with them.
Does link come as part of any version of Microsoft Windows, or
GNU/Linux?
| If you want your program to link against a library not covered by
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| that exception, you need to add your own exception, wholly outside of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| the GPL. This copyright notice and license notice give permission to
| link with the program FOO:
|
| Copyright (C) yyyy <name of copyright holder>
|
| This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
| it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
| the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
| (at your option) any later version.
|
| This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
| but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
| MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
| GNU General Public License for more details.
|
| You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
| along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
| Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA
| 02111-1307 USA
|
| In addition, as a special exception, <name of copyright
| holder> gives permission to link the code of this program with
| the FOO library (or with modified versions of FOO that use the
| same license as FOO), and distribute linked combinations including
| the two. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all
| respects for all of the code used other than FOO. If you modify
| this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the
| file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to
| do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
|
| Only the copyright holders for the program can legally authorize
| this exception. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then assuming
| your employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the
| copyright holder--so you can authorize the exception. But if you want
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| to use parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| code, you cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| approval of the copyright holders of those programs.
Whole AbiWord.
|
| When other people modify the program, they do not have to make the
| same exception for their code--it is their choice whether to do so.
|
| Adding this exception eliminates the legal issue, but does nothing
| about the more serious problem of using a non-free library: your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If your program
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| depends on a non-free library to do a certain job, it cannot do that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| job in the Free World. If it depends on a non-free library to run at
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| all, it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is
| entirely off limits to the Free World.
|
| So please consider: can you find a way to get the job done without
| using this library? Can you write a free replacement for that library?
I think we can try to (if I can convince a teacher of such), but the
best would be to convince them to use a compatible license.
|
| If the program is already written using the non-free library,
| perhaps it is too late to change the decision. You may as well release
| the program as it stands, rather than not release it. But please
| mention in the README that the need for the non-free library is a
| drawback, and suggest the task of changing the program so that it does
| the same job without the non-free library.
|
| Also please tell us (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about the non-free library
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| and what job it does. We could encourage people to develop a free
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| library to do the same job.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The words are not there, but they may also promote the change to a free
software license to the authors of said code.
> 3) Therefore AbiWord can load this plugin, legally
Not.
> This does *not* affect the copyright on existing AbiWord code at all. I
> am the sole copyright holder on the plugin, therefore I have complete
> authority to change the license as I see fit.
I hope I was able to explain why this sentences are wrong.
> I do *not* use code copyrighted under the GPL by other people in my
> plugin code. I *do* call APIs that are licensed under the GPL, but I do
> not believe that is a use of other "GPL-covered programs by other
> authors in my code" - it's a public API call into what I'm deeming a
> "system library".
Again, from the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLModuleLicense
| * If I add a module to a GPL-covered module, do I have to use the GPL
| as the license for my module?
|
| The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released
| under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the
| GPL.
|
| But you can give additional permission for the use of your code.
| You can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is
| more lax than the GPL but compatible with the GPL. The license list
| page gives a partial list of GPL-compatible licenses.
|
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfLibraryIsGPL
| * If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that
| mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
|
| Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
The plugin uses as extra libraries AbiWord (GPL) and 'link' (not libre).
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
>
> If these actions are not sufficient for you, I may choose to relicense
> my plugin code under some other GPL-compatible license which does not
> have this absurd bigotry about linking against non-free libraries.
It does not solve the problem, as you have to use the GPL as is said in
#TOCIfLibraryIsGPL
> Of course, it would be best *for our purposes* if Link was able to
> relicense their code under some GPL-compatible license.
This is where I am betting we should make an effort. As Jared said, they
might be willing. I say we concentrate on talking with them towards
that.
Hugs, rms
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Ghandi
+ So let's do it...?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
