On Sunday 26 October 2003 20:15, Eran Tromer wrote: > On 2003/10/26 19:06, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > > The distinction is very simple - whatever code that is a derived > > work from the GPLed parts (and assuming they are *GPLed* and not, > > LGPLed, for example) can only be distributed under the GPL license > > by him. > > > > In practice what this usually boils down to in most cases is that > > if it's code that is linked in any way (via using a loadable > > library, using a static library, copy & paste from the sources > > etc.) to GPLed code then it too falls under the GPL. If you're > > using the GPLed software in some other way (sending commands from a > > propritery program via a pipe, executing the GPLed program and > > using the results, making use of normal well defined generic > > interfaces such as system calls) then your client code is not > > derived work and he has no obligation concerning his own code in > > this case. The GPL still applies on the GPLed parts though. > > The distiction is anything but simple. The above seems in line with > the stand FSF has expressed in such matters (in the relevant FAQ and > various other opportunities). Alas, while the FSF's interpretation of > the GPL is socially binding in some circles, its legal status is > close to null. The the GPL itself is far from such concreteness, and > in fact carefully avoids any technical definitions (see Section 2 > paragraph 4). > > As for the distinction you propose: what's the essential difference > between use via loadable libraries and and use via pipe commands? > Either can be easily used to simulate the other (at least in the > normal case where the library and app don't share memory buffers and > such), so the two cases are equivalent up to overhead. Put otherwise, > if pipes block GPLness then I can just put a pipe-based RPC wrapper > around the GPL library (using CORBA or RMI or custom code or > whatever) and voila, it can be used in in proprietary programs. > Somewhat odd.
Eran, My answer was given in the form of two separate paragraphs and such a choice of lexical structure usually denotes two separate subjects are discussed. Indeed, such was the case with my answer but you seemed to have missed this completely. The first paragraph of my answer discussed the distinction between work which is derived of a GPL work and one that is isn't. The basis for such a distinction, as you know very well, is copyright law, not the GPL itself. Under copyright law an author of a work has a limited monopoly to limit the distribution of the work he created according to his terms and the GPL being a copyright license can therefore only effects something which is derived work of the original GPLed work in question. This distinction IS quite simple: derived work - you must obey the GPL because nothing else but excepting the terms of this contract (and it is a contract) will grant you the right to distribute the derived work you created from it. If it's not derived work no one can tell you what to do with it, at least not in context of copyright. The first paragraph was there on purpose - this is the distinction that is important. The second paragraph simple described common rules of thumb of determining where this line is drawn. They are NOT precise. They are simply accepted heuristics. However - since, as you mentioned, the original composer of the copyright license publicly stated that they accept these heuristics to be correct, at least in the general case, we can just as well treat them as correct in the sense that anything that the FSF considers to NOT be a derived work, isn't. I agree that the other way around is not as simple - not everything that the FSF claims to be derived work will be automatically considered by a court as derived work, but the FSF are very reasonable people, they have some VERY bright lawyers, and up till now they have won every single time. And please don't bring that stupid myth that the GPL is not 100% "enforceable" because it was not tested in a courtroom - the fact that it never GOT to a courtroom despite numerous incidents with big multinational companies with loads of cash and hordes of lawyers who mistakingly (or not) violated the license and settled with the FSF (the single exception where the GPL got to a courtroom is the MySQL case, where AFAIK the issue of whether the GPL holds was never raised) speaks more loudly then a thousand courts - the GPL is as "enforceable" as any contract can be. Sorry if I sound a little excited. My back hurts and I just got a back rub with "Tiger Balm" lotion and it burns like hell :-) Have a nice day, Gilad IANAL Ben-Yossef -- Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://benyossef.com ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
