Shachar,
I guess you are still a bit wrong about GPL, but of course IANAL.
IMHO, it's not the black or white world of it's a derived work or
not. Random notes:
* LGPL is GPL compatible, but it does not mean you if you are
not the author of an LGPLed piece of code, you are allowed to
make a derived work out of it and release it under GPL (your winw
example). LGPL is GPL complatible, means LGPL gives a user at
least the freedom that GPL does, so you can *link* to an LGPL
library, or even use it and include it in your GPLed software,
but that library should still remain LGPL. Your new work can be
GPLed. The whole idea of copyleft is: You can't get freedom
from the user, so can't restrict LGPLed code to GPLed.
* GPL requires that derived work must be GPL too. Derived work
here is work that uses the source code of the original one.
* GPL also requires that using the code (linking to it, ...),
can be done just from GPLed code. So, MS Office is not a derived
work of winw (a GPLed wine clone), so winw cannot *force* MS to
make it's Office suite GPLed, but as an agreement between
copyright holder of winw and you the user, you are not allowed to
run MS Office (which is not GPLed) under winw.
This pieces from GPL FAQ may help:
You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to
build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your
program mean I have to GPL my program?
Yes.
If so, is there any chance I could get a license of your program
under the Lesser GPL?
You can ask, but most authors will stand firm and say no. The
idea of the GPL is that if you want to include our code in your
program, your program must also be free software. It is supposed
to put pressure on you to release your program in a way that
makes it part of our community.
You always have the legal alternative of not using our code.
How can I allow linking of proprietary modules with my
GPL-covered library under a controlled interface only?
Add this text to the license notice of each file in the
package, at the end of the text that says the file is distributed
under the GNU GPL:
Linking FOO statically or dynamically with other modules is making a
combined work based on FOO. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU
General Public License cover the whole combination.
As a special exception, the copyright holders of FOO give you
permission to link FOO with independent modules that communicate with
FOO solely through the FOOBAR interface, regardless of the license
terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the
resulting combined work under terms of your choice, provided that
every copy of the combined work is accompanied by a complete copy of
the source code of FOO (the version of FOO used to produce the
combined work), being distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License plus this exception. An independent module is a module
which is not derived from or based on FOO.
Note that people who make modified versions of FOO are not obligated
to grant this special exception for their modified versions; it is
their choice whether to do so. The GNU General Public License gives
permission to release a modified version without this exception; this
exception also makes it possible to release a modified version which
carries forward this exception.
behdad
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> As it is clear that I have been misunderstood, I'll try to explain again.
>
> Wine is LGPL. As such, it is not covered by this discussion.
>
> Let's then take the wine code, and fork it. We'll call the new program
> "Winw", for "Winw is not Wine". Winw is licensed under the GPL (as the
> GPL is LGPL compatible, this is perfectly ok). Now let's look at the
> email again.
>
> Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>
> >>Merely linking with a library does not make your software derived work
> >>of that company! How can that be?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What if all your software does is add a "main()" to a 100,000 lines of
> >code in the library? by the provisions of the GPL, linking your code
> >with a GPL'd library makes your code a derived work.
> >
> >
> >
> You missed my point. The question is not whether it sometimes is. The
> question is whether it is sometimes isn't.
>
> >Quoting the GPL FAQ:
> >
> >Q: 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?
> >
> >A: Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the
> >library.
> >
> >
> >
> That establishes, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the FSF consider it
> derived work. They are not the determining factor, however. The GPL is
> based on the copyright law. Just as you wouldn't want SCO to decide what
> is and what isn't derived work based solely on their whim, you wouldn't
> let the FSF do the same.
>
> The question, therefor, remain. Does merely linking (dynamically) with a
> library make my program a derived work of the library?
>
> >>Let's take an example. Suppose Wine is distributed under the GPL (It's
> >>LGPL, but for the sake of discussion).
> >>
> >>
> >
> >No no no, that's exactly the difference between the GPL and the LGPL!
> >
> >
> >
> Then strike "wine" out, and put "winw" in instead.
>
> >>According to your logic, any
> >>program that is built to link against Wine is a derivative work of Wine,
> >>and therefor must be under the GPL.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Correct.
> >
> >
> >>This is patently absured.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Why is it absurd? speaking as a hypothetical WINE developer, if you
> >want to use my hard work (link against wine) you have to contribute
> >something in return - make your code GPL.
> >
> >
> >
> There is a seprate question here. Just because I may or may not think a
> certain activity just, doesn't make it also legally enforceable.
>
> Effectively, a Windows program that uses the winw libraries to run on
> Linux cannot be considered derived work of winw. Winw did not even exist
> when the program was written and compiled. How can the license for winw,
> or what the copyright holders for winw think, affect the question of
> whether Word is a derived work of it or not?
>
> And furthermore - if Word is not a derived work of winw, why should it
> be covered by winw license?
>
> >>Most of
> >>the programs that link with Wine never heard of Wine in their entire
> >>life. They were built to link with Win32 API, expecting Microsoft's
> >>version of it. How can a software that never knew about my program be
> >>considered derivative work of it?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Do they require a reompilation to link with wine, or is it dynamic
> >linking in the dlopen() sense?
> >
> Obviously, as winw will run the same programs without touching the
> binary, we are talking about runtime linkage.
>
> > In any case, it is obvious that the
> >program is using my work (as a hypothetical wine programmer) and thus
> >can be considered a derived work of mine.
> >
> >
> >
> Like I tried to claim above - one is not deductable from the other. The
> program is using my work now, that's true, but did not use my work to be
> developed. It can therefor not be considered derived work.
>
> >I certainly agree with you that in this case, the onus of making the
> >code open does not lie with its developers (who have no knowledge of
> >and have never used WINE), but rather with the user who did use WINE,
> >which is a thorny mess I have no idea how to solve ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> No, this is absured. The user has neither means nor obligation. If the
> developer, who has the sources, cannot be said to have created derived
> work, why should a user, who has no means of changing the software at
> all, be held liable for anything? I'm keeping the relevant GPL clauses
> out of the discussion on purpose. The GPL is irrelevant unless we are
> talking about derived work.
>
> >>For that reason, I'm not sure that the QT GPL license indeed means what
> >>some people think it means. I'm pretty sure that's what QT's people
> >>expected it to mean, but that still does not mean this is, indeed, the
> >>case. In any case, I think the Wine example clearly shows that the mere
> >>act of dynamic linking does not yet make a program derived work.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The FSF FAQ is one hundred percent clear on this subject. See quote
> >above.
> >
> Clear - yes. Legally binding - I don't know.
>
> > It is also as close as you can get to authoriative until a
> >court rules on what exactly the GPL means.
> >
> >
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Muli
> >
> >
> You must also understand something else here. The very fact that there
> are some cases where merely linking is not considered derived work does
> not mean that all cases are like that. I chose winw because it's a clear
> case where derived work cannot possibly be even contemplated (I think).
>
> Now comes the part where I say that I'm not a lawyer. I guess questions
> such as "how much of an original work does the program provide", "how
> specific to the work in question is the API", and many many other
> considerations may come to play here in determining whether a given
> program is a derived work of another library.
>
> Shachar
>
>
=================================================================
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]
