Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
Glenn L. McGrath wrote: This question doesn't directly relate to debian, but i hope you can help straighten me out with this. I'm trying to understand licensing obligations in regard to GPL'ed binaries that link to GPL incompatible libraries. OK. The current situation. A GPL'ed binary links to a shared library that is under the revised BSD license, the licenses are compatible so the distributer of unmodified GPL binaries must make the source to both projects available. The questionable situation A company distributes a GPL incompatible shared library that replaces the above mentioned BSD license library. A customer who downloads and installs this GPL incompatible library then has GPL'ed apps linked to GPL incompatible library. My understanding is that licences havent been violated by either the company or customer at this stage. Correct. The company hasn't distributed anything GPLed at all, and the customer is free to link together whatever they wish if they don't distribute the result. However, what if the customer then wanted to sell the machine, or if the company wanted to sell machines with this incompatible binary and library preinstalled. Would this violation the GPL, or is it possible that the companies modifcations are hiding behind the BSD license library ? This would violate the GPL. The violation occurs once you want to distribute a GPLed binary linked to a GPL-incompatible library. The fact that your distribution medium is an entire computer system does not change this. The confusing part for me is that the library is ABI compatible with a pre-existing compatible library, so I'm not sure when and by whom any problem occurs. The problem only occurs once you *distribute* the GPLed binary linked to the GPL-incompatible library. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
On 2/12/06, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] However, what if the customer then wanted to sell the machine, or if the company wanted to sell machines with this incompatible binary and library preinstalled. Would this violation the GPL, or is it possible that the companies modifcations are hiding behind the BSD license library ? This would violate the GPL. The violation occurs once you want to distribute a GPLed binary linked to a GPL-incompatible library. Only in the GNU Republic where software belongs to state (and hence it is regulated by state permits akin to lottery or gun dealership which are neither contracts nor property rights), and both 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117 are simply nonexistent. Then comes the doctrine of copyright misuse... GPL violation of which has raised to the level of antitrust violation according to Wallace... and according to Prof. Nadan it doesn't even have to raise to the level of antitrust violation because linking claims alone are sufficient to put the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain (the penalty for copyright misuse). So pick your choice, GNUtians. regards, alexander.
Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
On 2/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [... bloby Eben's manifestations of blatant copyright misuse*** ...] Thanks, that makes it clearer. Bitteschoen, bittesehr. Now be a good GNItian and go https://www.fsf.org/donate. regards, alexander. ***) http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004248.html
Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
Quoting Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: One of the questions with the GPL is about how tightly you may link GPL code with non-GPL code, for example, when you compile a GPL program and it uses other code in a software library. Have you done anything to define how tightly GPL code may be linked with non-GPL code? Under what circumstances is that permitted and not permitted? Bloby Eben: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released. and (in another interview) The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2 (b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. IBM: (Tenth Defense) Thanks, that makes it clearer. Glenn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
Quoting Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is tricky. The relevant section in the GPL is But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. So, is the library part of the whole? If the company does not distribute the BSD licensed library on the machine, then it is fairly clear that the proprietary library is part of the whole. However, if the BSD library is also included, then it becomes unclear. I could see it going either way, depending on the judge and lawyers. This is what you call lawyerbait. Thanks for your reply, just a clarification. The section of the GPL you posted above is from section 2 which covers distribution of modified GPL'ed works. In this case the GPL binary being distriuted is from unmodified source code, all the modifications are in the GPL incompatible library. The GPL apps dont need to be modified as the GPL incompatible library is a drop in replacment for the existing BSD license that the GPL app was built against. So i assume now that they are distributing the GPL app under clause 1, that they can distribute the unmodified GPL binary and GPL incompatible library together, and are only required to make source available for the GPL'ed application, not the GPL incompatible library. I hope i have it right this time... Glenn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
On 2/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I hope i have it right this time... In the GNU Republic you'll end up in jail. One of the questions with the GPL is about how tightly you may link GPL code with non-GPL code, for example, when you compile a GPL program and it uses other code in a software library. Have you done anything to define how tightly GPL code may be linked with non-GPL code? Under what circumstances is that permitted and not permitted? Bloby Eben: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released. and (in another interview) The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2 (b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. IBM: (Tenth Defense) SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse. s/SCO/FSF regards, alexander.
Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is tricky. The relevant section in the GPL is But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. So, is the library part of the whole? If the company does not distribute the BSD licensed library on the machine, then it is fairly clear that the proprietary library is part of the whole. However, if the BSD library is also included, then it becomes unclear. I could see it going either way, depending on the judge and lawyers. This is what you call lawyerbait. Thanks for your reply, just a clarification. The section of the GPL you posted above is from section 2 which covers distribution of modified GPL'ed works. In this case the GPL binary being distriuted is from unmodified source code, all the modifications are in the GPL incompatible library. The GPL apps dont need to be modified as the GPL incompatible library is a drop in replacment for the existing BSD license that the GPL app was built against. So i assume now that they are distributing the GPL app under clause 1, that they can distribute the unmodified GPL binary and GPL incompatible library together, and are only required to make source available for the GPL'ed application, not the GPL incompatible library. Distributing object code falls under clause 3, which references clause 2. Clause 2 talks about modified work as a whole which even includes parts which can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves. So whether the GPL'd parts are modified does not actually matter. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
On 2/5/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is tricky. The relevant section in the GPL is But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. So, is the library part of the whole? If the company does not distribute the BSD licensed library on the machine, then it is fairly clear that the proprietary library is part of the whole. However, if the BSD library is also included, then it becomes unclear. I could see it going either way, depending on the judge and lawyers. This is what you call lawyerbait. Thanks for your reply, just a clarification. The section of the GPL you posted above is from section 2 which covers distribution of modified GPL'ed works. In this case the GPL binary being distriuted is from unmodified source code, all the modifications are in the GPL incompatible library. The GPL apps dont need to be modified as the GPL incompatible library is a drop in replacment for the existing BSD license that the GPL app was built against. So i assume now that they are distributing the GPL app under clause 1, that they can distribute the unmodified GPL binary and GPL incompatible library together, and are only required to make source available for the GPL'ed application, not the GPL incompatible library. Distributing object code falls under clause 3, which references clause 2. Clause 2 talks about modified work as a whole which even includes parts which can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves. So whether the GPL'd parts are modified does not actually matter. Hey bug1, and it doesn't mean that by refraining from distributing GPL'd object code (distribute GPL'd source code only) you can escape copyleft -- it's impossible to escape copyleft in the land of true GNUtians. regards, alexander.
Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
On 1/27/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Glenn L. McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all; This question doesn't directly relate to debian, but i hope you can help straighten me out with this. I'm trying to understand licensing obligations in regard to GPL'ed binaries that link to GPL incompatible libraries. First of all, don't pay attention to anything that Alexander Terekhov writes. He is the biggest troll I have seen on debian-legal for a Landry, Landry. Bad memory you have. You've been trolled by me long ago on boost.org. (Gah. I have been trolled. last link below) http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/64968.php http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65036.php http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65056.php http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65062.php http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65070.php http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65083.php http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65086.php http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65107.php [... whole ... machine ...] Only machine? Why not GPL a whole building? regards, alexander.
Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
Glenn L. McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all; This question doesn't directly relate to debian, but i hope you can help straighten me out with this. I'm trying to understand licensing obligations in regard to GPL'ed binaries that link to GPL incompatible libraries. First of all, don't pay attention to anything that Alexander Terekhov writes. He is the biggest troll I have seen on debian-legal for a long time, and I wish people would stop feeding him. The current situation. A GPL'ed binary links to a shared library that is under the revised BSD license, the licenses are compatible so the distributer of unmodified GPL binaries must make the source to both projects available. The questionable situation A company distributes a GPL incompatible shared library that replaces the above mentioned BSD license library. A customer who downloads and installs this GPL incompatible library then has GPL'ed apps linked to GPL incompatible library. My understanding is that licences havent been violated by either the company or customer at this stage. However, what if the customer then wanted to sell the machine, or if the company wanted to sell machines with this incompatible binary and library preinstalled. Would this violation the GPL, or is it possible that the companies modifcations are hiding behind the BSD license library ? This is tricky. The relevant section in the GPL is But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. So, is the library part of the whole? If the company does not distribute the BSD licensed library on the machine, then it is fairly clear that the proprietary library is part of the whole. However, if the BSD library is also included, then it becomes unclear. I could see it going either way, depending on the judge and lawyers. This is what you call lawyerbait. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
