On 5/22/2006 3:55 AM, Berwin A Turlach wrote: > G'day Deepayan, > >>>>>> "DS" == Deepayan Sarkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > DS> let me first summarize this sub-discussion so far: [...] > Sound like a perfect summary. :) > > DS> As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), > DS> your contention is that by linking a GPL component P with a > DS> non-GPL component Q, a user may lose the rights granted to him > DS> by the GPL to the GPL-d part P. > I don't think that I said this explicitly, but I can see how what I > said can be interpreted in such a way. The point is rather that at > the moment component P and Q are linked (and I perhaps carelessly > assumed that the user was doing this) a product is produced that > should be completely under the GPL. Obviously it is not. Hence, the > status of this linked product, and whether it can be used by anybody, > is an open question. And the answer is probably given by the > copyright laws (and others?) of the country in the linking happens. > > > DS> Let's assume this is true. All that means is that the user has > DS> lost his rights to "copy, modify and redistribute" P. He does > DS> NOT lose the rights to use P. > I agree with you on this. Probably I was to terse in my writing and > produced misunderstandings. I never intended to say something about > the rights that the user has with regards to P alone. My comments > were directed towards the linked product P+Q. In particular, it is > not clear to me whether one can execute such a product without > violating copyright laws.
The GPL is quite explicit on this: as Deepayan said, it confers rights to copy, modify and redistribute P. "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." This probably varies from country to country, but I think the assumption is that if you have a legally acquired copy of a program, you have a right to execute it as you like. (The American DMCA and laws in other countries that implement the WIPO anti-circumvention rules limit you in specific ways, but they probably don't apply to the situation we're talking about.) Now, I suppose you might argue that executing P+Q makes a copy of it in memory, but I think countries that have modernized their copyright laws recognize that this is something you have a right to do with a legally acquired copy. You don't need the GPL to give you permission to do this. That's certainly true in the US and Canada. Your country may vary. Duncan Murdoch > > Thus, the last sentence of mine that you quoted: > > My understanding was that in that moment a product was > created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the > user was violating the GPL and lost the write to use your > package. > > Should perhaps better be formulated as: > > My understanding was that in that moment a product was > created that would have to be wholly under the GPL, so the > person who did the linking was violating the GPL and it is > not clear whether anyone is allowed to use the linked product. > > >> A simple google search would have confirmed to you that the > >> linux kernel is developed under the GPL. [...] > DS> Linux is under GPL2, and not "GPL2 or later". [...] > Oh, I wasn't aware that they did not use the typical(?) "or later" > phrase. Thanks for pointing this out and I note that we both agree > that the linux kernel is definitely not under LGPL. > > DS> In any case, this is the complete opposite of the situation we > DS> were originally discussing: [...] > >> [...] So I have to wonder to what you are referring to as "the > >> situation we were originally discussing". > > DS> I was referring to your question (quoted above) about use of > DS> GPL'd code in S-PLUS, which is what I was replying to. As I > DS> was saying, that situation is the opposite of the one in your > DS> example. > O.k., sorry, I used a different scale with the time point of origin at > Spencer's e-mail and my answer to that mail. Now I am with you. > > Agreed, the situation is the opposite, but that was the example > discussed in gnu.misc.discuss. From an abstract point of view the > situations are the same. You make someone else link a GPL product > with a non-GPL product creating a derived work, the derived work would > have to be under the GPL but is not. Hence, the derived work has a > legal status that is in limbo and it is not clear whether anyone has > to right to use it. > > The discussions on gnu.misc.discuss were centred on cases were people > provided non-GPL binaries, asked their users to download GPL software > from elsewhere, compile and link everything together and then use the > combined product. > > As you say it is the exact opposite (and hence mirror image) from the > situation that I was worried about, where I provide GPL software and > ask others to compile and link it with non-GPL binaries and then use > the combined product. > > If one scenario is not on, I don't see how the other one could be > acceptable either. Except that in the first scenario there is a clear > intend of circumventing the GPL. But I was not sure whether such kind > of intent makes any difference. Thus, to avoid all these problems I > decided to rather use the LGPL since that licence definitely seemed to > allow both. > > Hope this clarifies some of my comments. > > Cheers, > > Berwin > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html ______________________________________________ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
