On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 18:06 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > >> > You have to comply with GPL v2. Which is not difficult and costs nothing. > >> > >> In case you want deliver your specific proprietary command line > >> executable and you would like to keep its size very small then you can > >> compile it linking against busybox library. Remember that GPL allow > >> only dynamic linking, static should enforce GPL redistributions terms > >> and make your application bigger. > > > > Eh? The GPL does not allow dynamic linking against non-free code. Are > > you thinking of the LGPL? > > > > Thanks very much for your promptly correction. I forgot to say that > the point of view I exposed is NOT the strictly/cautionary one.
It is not even logically coherent, IMNSHO. This isn't just about how the library is used at runtime. Using a public shared library involves building against that shared library and this means *including* the source code of that library directly into the program. #include <qpl-header.h> does exactly that - the preprocessor physically includes the entire header file and all header files that it references into the object files being compiled. The header file is copyrighted and licenced under the GPL. The licence forbids the copying of the file and it's contents except under the GPL. If you grep the resulting binary (even after using strip), you will find that elements of that file are retained in the executable - the (copyrighted) names of the symbols that are defined in the GPL library. If that executable is not licenced under the GPL, that contravenes the GPL. Simple. At the compilation stage, the GPL'd code has become a part of the executable at a *physical* level that can be easily identified later. The question is whether the non-free code can exist without the GPL code. If it cannot be built without the GPL code then the GPL code is, by definition, included in the executable - part of the executable, the executable and the library are one program. The mere fact that the object files are split into different files for convenience does not detract from the fact that the symbols from the library are physically part of the executable and therefore that the executable is derived from the library - namely the header files and the definition of the copyrighted symbols contained within. The linking comes later, the problem is the inclusion of the copyrighted symbols and the licence under which those symbols can be used. That is why I said that if the library shows up in 'objdump -p' as NEEDED then the executable must be released under the GPL. > It was > a HUGE missing I recognize it, please do not flame for this. In facts > there are people who consider acceptable dynamic linking against GPLv2 > (or previous) libraries. I've read the refs you mention, I do not think that any are logically coherent. It is wrong to advise people that they can link when logic dictates that they cannot. > You are right in say that GNU indicates that > dynamic linking is not allowed but unfortunately they could be wrong, > at least in writing correctly the GPLv2 many years ago. Until that is tested in court, it is mere speculation. The people enforcing the licence in court will be the FSF so it's not exactly sensible to dismiss them so lightly. > In the previous link there some good points, for community too, to > have a soften approach to consider dynamic liking acceptable. Here in > this following link there are good consideration to think that this > soften approach would be soft and put the GPL code in danger to be > betrayed but malicious adopters, instead. > > http://www.advogato.org/article/148.html The article makes no sense and it does not answer the problem of preprocessing the copyrighted header files. > However in the comments of the page previously linked somebody asked > if dynamic linking against a GPL-library has been objected in a court. > It is not easy for me to understand exactly legal English but the > following link seem to say "yes, dynamic linking with GPL is > acceptable". > > http://www.oslawblog.com/2005/01/dynamic-linking-gpl-and-lgpl.html I disagree - I think your translation of the comments has led you into a logical dead-end. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
