On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:55:31PM +0200, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without > > limitation in the term "modification".) > > I've read and re-read this, and I'm having trouble figuring out how anyone > can consider a network client as being a derivative work of the server. The > client does not contain any of the server.
The point is that whatever you think is of no concern, mostly. What counts is what local law says, to a lesser extent what the authors of the program or the license say, and to most extent what decision this might result in court. It might matter to people in the sense of influencing them to either use or not use a piece of software based on their understanding of the license or the laws. However, licenses are a purely legal tool. I am sure the FSF would rather do without licenses and copyright law (which is the reason for the term "copyleft", basically it means "abusing" increasingly restrictive copyright laws to _force_ sharing). As a legal tool, they only mean something in court (well, depending on the legal system in force :) > gets a response (still using xml-rpc as the example). At no stage does the > client contain part of the server. The client can exist with an alternate, > non-GPL implementation of the same server with no change (similarly, It mostly doesn't matter. If the authors say it is covered by the GPL it might be, or it might not be. If you want to know, ignore the authors and if they go to court, hope that you prevail.... As an example, mysql itself is under the General Public License. The mysql interface library is under the Lesser General Public License. You would expect that you can link against the interface library and get away with only providing a dynamically linked binary. However, a little known "clarification" to the mysql license states that if your product requires mysql (because it e.g. it either uses SQL features only available in mysql OR it is being delivered with mysql) then it's not mere aggregation but a derived work, and the GPL applies to your software. According to you, this shouldn't be. Additionally, one would assume that these are additional restrictions that are explicitly forbidden by the GPL itself. I'd bet, however, that in a court the mysql authors/owners would have good chances to force the GPL license on your product, at least in some countries. It's still a game of chance, though. The point really is to understand that no license can exactly define terms that are completely outside of it's scope, e.g. "derived work", or even dependent on local laws. The GPL doesn't try to define this, and that is what you have to cope with. It's vague, ugly (especially for hackers us who would like to have everything strictly defined and unambgiuous), but really no different to the situation in mathematics, which also contains paradoxies and unresolvable problems. It's something that, I believe, one just has to live with. > >So I hope it's very clear now that "it depends". > > Ummm.. no. And getting unclearer all the time. Get used to it. The "unclearness" is *precisely* :) what this is about. -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer