Sorry, sent this privately by mistake, linux-il doesn't work with the reply to list option of sylpheed ...
Begin forwarded message: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:52:50 +0200 From: Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Ethical question.. On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:26:27 +0200 Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Usual disclaimers apply. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. > > Micha Feigin wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:26:46 +0200 > > Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> They manage 1 and 2, they have a very good case for claiming that the > >> userspace tool is not a derived work of their kernel space driver, and > >> thus not bound by the kernel module's license. > >> > >> Shachar > >> > > > > This goes into another legal question, at what point does "uses" becomes > > "derived work". > > > > For example, if I have a program that uses a GPL library, but could just as > > well have used a LGPL of non-free library, possibly with a slight api > > change, is it derived work or not? > > > I'm assuming here that all three libraries have the same interface. In > other words, they export exactly the same functions, named the same, and > having the same semantics, so that replacing one with the other is, at > worst, a case of recompilation with no code changes. > The interface is different in this case but they provide the exact same results. Thus I would need to change the API but not the algorithm. Like I said, one way is to write a wrapper that exports a standard API and make the wrapper free. In my current case, the libraries implement free (completely in every sense) algorithms, but some variations are in themselves limited in terms of license (and differ a bit in performance but not in results). The issue in my case is that at the moment I am not writing closed source code (and if it interests anyone I don't care to give it away), but, I am spending time to learn tools that will be useful when/if I go out on the open market and sell my services to companies writing closed source (will all need to eat ...). I would rather spend my time on tools I can also use in the closed source scenario instead of learning different tools for every job. I don't think this falls under the derived work scenario but for safety's sake I try to use only LGPL libraries for this reason and avoid the GPL ones. > The FSF would have you believe that this is derived work. As I have > stated many times in the past, I don't buy this. > > The ultimate counter example I can give is Wine. The simple fact of the > matter is that NOTHING will cause MS Word to become derived work of > Wine. I think we would all agree that it doesn't matter what the Wine > license might be, nor that any Windows program running under wine is, in > fact, dynamically linking to it. > > If three different implementations provide the same interface, it's > fairly obvious that your program depends on the interface, rather than > on the implementation of the libraries. If that is the case, it's pretty > clear to me that you cannot claim that your program is derived from the > library, and thus the library's license does not affect you. > > As I stated above, the FSF have a pretty different view, but I actually > that this view is self contradicting. For reasons why, check out the > license for a program called "rsyncrypto" (this is not someone else > supporting my view, as I wrote rsyncrypto. This is merely me being lazy > re-typing what I said there) - > http://rsyncrypto.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/rsyncrypto/trunk/COPYING?revision=174&view=markup. > > (I have a debate of which mathematical libraries to use at the moment). > > > If they are not of identical interfaces, and you cannot have your own > program be GPL, everything else being equal, I'd go with the LGPL version. > > If I spilt the API into a module and bundle one that works with the GPL code > > and one with the non-GPL code thus giving the option for both of them, does > > that matter? > > > To my thinking - yes. If you create an interface that is independent of > the implementation, no-one using that interface can be said to be > derived work of the implementation. > > Yes, that does mean that the GPL isn't as strong as we may hope/wish it > to be. This is, I think, a direct result of it being a *copyright* > license. When the copyright protection ends - so does the GPL protection. > > 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]
