Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> writes: > Hi, Erik! > > It's good to talk to somebody with a name. :-) > > In gnu.misc.discuss Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote: >> The GPL is misunderstood on a daily basis by many people. In fact, >> even GPL advocates can't seem to come to a consensus over what it >> means, so how is any "normal" person supposed to know? > >> Here's an example. Some GPL advocates believe that dynamic linking is >> not covered by the GPL, while others (including the FSF) believe it is. > > Dynamic linking, along with static linking, compilation, interpretation, > profiling, and other specific techniques used by hackers are not covered > by the GPL - they're outside its scope, and would be more of matter of > patents than a copyright license, were they patentable. > >> Another example is XMLRPC (or SOAP or other similar technoloties) in >> which a function is called via network request on a distributed system. >> Some believe that this is covered by the GPL, others believe it isn't. > > I'll assume that by "this" you mean the invocation of a GPL licensed > function over a network, or a GPL licensed program invoking something > over a network. > > The GPL doesn't differentiate between calling technoloties. It's _what_ > gets called that matters, not the technoloty by which it gets called; > whether the thing getting called is a program independent of what's > calling it, or is really part of it. The same applies to functionality > in a separately compiled library. > > It is not always quite clear whether a library function or network > function is "an independent program". That's just life; software isn't > simple and the GPL can't make it so. > > The GPL doesn't distinguish between calling methods for a good reason, > namely it would allow anybody to incorporate GPL code into his > proprietary program. All he would have to do is make his proprietary > extension callable via a network call (say, a BSD socket, much like > X-Windows does (I think)), and then publish the source code only for > the GPL bit, to which he's added a network call. > >> Many people think the GPL prevents you from charging money for GPL >> software, yet the FSF says they encourage you to do so. > > A less intelligent, less literate class of people, perhaps. SuSE, Redhat, > and friends have been charging money "for" GPL software for years. You > may charge money for distributing GPL software, or for offering support. > You may not charge money for a GPL license. A slightly subtle difference, > but really not all that hard to grasp for people who've actually read the > GPL. > >> Many people think the GPL requires you to "give back" your changes to >> the author, but nothing could be further from the truth. Even if you >> consider the GPL's software requirements to provide source to anyone >> you provide binaries that doesnt' require you to give that source to >> the upstream authors, only the downstream customers. > > That might be true, but is of piffling importance. Generally, the author > can get the binary just like anybody else, hence is entitled to get the > source corresponding to that binary. > >> So no, the GPL is *NOT* perfectly plain and straight forward. And yes, >> you do need a lawyer to explain it to you, particulary when the issues >> of "derived work" are brought up, since the GPL does not define the >> term and relies on the accepted legal definition of the term, which is >> not as simple as it would seem. > > Of course the GPL relies on the legal definition of "derived work", since > the notion of creating derived works is central to it. That this can be > complicated, particularly at boundary cases, is simply a reflection of > the real world. But that complexity lies outside of the GPL - the world > of copyright law is complex, and it's clearly unreasonable to expect the > GPL somehow to eliminate that complexity. > > That said, it's usually fairly easy for somebody acting in good faith to > see whether some piece of software is derived from GPL software. The > difficulties arise when somebody not acting in good faith attempts to > find some loophole through which she can legally violate the intention > and spirit of the GPL. > >> The only people who do *NOT* find the GPL difficult to understand are >> those thoat think they understand it when they really do not. > > That's a wild thing to say. I think you're failing to distinguish the > GPL, which is easy to understand, with the wider chaos of copyright and > licensing law, which is anything but.
Well, that's clarified it. Hey! Only an idiot would not understand the GPL eh? LOL. -- In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss