Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
I really appreciate the comments and suggestions I got in this mailing list. I understand that the issue depends on the definition of an derivative work. It seems if the combination of a GPL-licensed and an EPL-licensed software in a distribution is permitted if the combination is not a derivative work but a separate work. Our GPLv3-licensed software is a mathematical programming language (CMPL) that generates a instance file of an linear program. After the generation of the instance file an EPL-licensed solver is executed directly using the command line interface. If there is an optimal solution our software reads a ASCII file that contains the solution. I interpret the licenses and your comments in the way that in this case there is no license violation if I bundle both binaries in one distribution. Thanks Mike Am 12.01.2012 um 16:59 schrieb Mike Steglich: Hi, Is it permitted to have a program licensed under GPLv3 and an EPL software in one binary distribution? There is no share of source code ore use of a library. The GPL binary executes the EPL binary as an external process (as a command line tool). I interpret that as an aggregate: A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an aggregate if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. Am I right or not? Thanks Mike ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
Hi, Is it permitted to have a program licensed under GPLv3 and an EPL software in one binary distribution? There is no share of source code ore use of a library. The GPL binary executes the EPL binary as an external process (as a command line tool). I interpret that as an aggregate: A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an aggregate if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. Am I right or not? Thanks Mike___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
Mike, The answer, as always, is it depends. Have you read [1] and [2]? They capture the basic positions of both the FSF and the Eclipse Foundation. However, they do focus primarily on the plug-in scenario. [1] http://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/epl-gpl-commentary/ [2] http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/using-the-gpl-for-eclipse-plug-ins From: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Mike Steglich Sent: January-12-12 10:59 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution Hi, Is it permitted to have a program licensed under GPLv3 and an EPL software in one binary distribution? There is no share of source code ore use of a library. The GPL binary executes the EPL binary as an external process (as a command line tool). I interpret that as an aggregate: A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an aggregate if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. Am I right or not? Thanks Mike ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi): On this topic there are many opinions out there and little case law, but personally I've always thought that if the FSF as the author of the GPL thinks something is permitted, then at least that much must be permitted and you can quite safely do that. In the general case (obviously excepting GNU packages), FSF is not the copyright holder and licensor. Hence, it cannot speak properly to other licensors' intentions, and its opinions are not relevant to what such licensors are willing and able to permit. (It would not in that case have standing in any related litigation, either, but that's a different subject.) I always value Prof. Moglen's and Richard S.'s views about what they intended the text of that and other FSF licences to accomplish, on the other hand. I've always felt that words like independent and combine a larger program are a bit ambiguous when your two separate programs still interact and work together so to speak. Even so, whether it is because it is an aggregation or for some other reason, the GPL FAQ clearly suggests it is permitted. In my personal experience, studying and understanding the copyight-law concept of 'derivative work' is useful and reading GPL FAQ's pronouncements is not. Your mileage may differ. -- Cheers, Rick Moen So, every time a new iPhone's about to come out, r...@linuxmafia.com one will get left in a bar? Apple's like a clumsy, McQ! (4x80)alcoholic Easter Bunny. -- Rex Huppke ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi): On this topic there are many opinions out there and little case law, but personally I've always thought that if the FSF as the author of the GPL thinks something is permitted, then at least that much must be permitted and you can quite safely do that. In the general case (obviously excepting GNU packages), FSF is not the copyright holder and licensor. Hence, it cannot speak properly to other licensors' intentions, and its opinions are not relevant to what such licensors are willing and able to permit. (It would not in that case have standing in any related litigation, either, but that's a different subject.) This is an important point, yes. Otoh the GPL is the same license for everyone that uses it. At least in an ideal world it cannot apply in one way to your software and another to mine, since it is the same text. Lacking more legal precedent (on this particular topic) we can only guess what the real answer is, but it seems the authors of the license text should at least get a say in that general discussion, even if they wouldn't have standing in some particular lawsuit. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:31:00PM +0200, Henrik Ingo wrote: On this topic there are many opinions out there and little case law, but personally I've always thought that if the FSF as the author of the GPL thinks something is permitted, then at least that much must be permitted and you can quite safely do that. . . . until the author's policy/stance changes. Then you might want to seek legal aid or quit using the licensed work. It's also important to take the (stated) intent of the work's author into consideration, because that person could still conceivably choose to sue you based on the letter of the license, rather than the FSF's stated intent for the license. Let the licensee beware. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:00:00PM +0200, Henrik Ingo wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi): On this topic there are many opinions out there and little case law, but personally I've always thought that if the FSF as the author of the GPL thinks something is permitted, then at least that much must be permitted and you can quite safely do that. In the general case (obviously excepting GNU packages), FSF is not the copyright holder and licensor. Hence, it cannot speak properly to other licensors' intentions, and its opinions are not relevant to what such licensors are willing and able to permit. (It would not in that case have standing in any related litigation, either, but that's a different subject.) This is an important point, yes. Otoh the GPL is the same license for everyone that uses it. At least in an ideal world it cannot apply in one way to your software and another to mine, since it is the same text. Lacking more legal precedent (on this particular topic) we can only guess what the real answer is, but it seems the authors of the license text should at least get a say in that general discussion, even if they wouldn't have standing in some particular lawsuit. My understanding is that the primary factors involved in determining the legal outcome of a conflict over license terms are (in no particular order): 1. What is the common understanding of the license? 2. What is the licensor's intent? 3. What could the licensee have reasonably believed the license to mean? 4. What does law on the books have to say about the matter? 5. What does court precedent establish the terms to mean? 6. How good is your lawyer? In that, the only way the opinion of the license's author really seems to factor into things once the license has already been written is as a contribution to the common understanding of the license. For that purpose, however, it is only one of many potential inputs to the common understanding of the license. What the licensee might reasonably believe the license to mean can be determined in court by, in part, the common understanding of the license. The same applies to the licensor's intent. Neither, however, is (likely to be) strictly dictated by common understanding of the license. That's my understanding, in any case. Of course, I am not a lawyer, this should not be regarded as legal advice, et cetera, yaddda yadda, don't take my word for it, get a lawyer. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: In that, the only way the opinion of the license's author really seems to factor into things once the license has already been written is as a contribution to the common understanding of the license. For that purpose, however, it is only one of many potential inputs to the common understanding of the license. Yes. However, when referring to the GPL FAQ, I actually believe it represents the common understanding of a rather large portion of the FOSS community, not just the understanding of Stallman or perhaps Moglen. (Granted, for many it is just that they accept whatever the FSF says, for others it might be they don't want to argue with the FSF, but even so, their acceptance then contributes to the common understanding.) Hence I find it a useful though not legally authoritative document. The real point I was trying to make however is that the GPL FAQ seems to function well as a safe baseline for what is very likely allowed. Most people who disagree with the FSF interpretation (such as Rosen in this thread) usually believe a more permissible interpretation of copyright law is correct. Hence, it seems while Rosen writes that the FSF position is wrong, in this particular case they both would agree that 2 separately running programs (sharing no code) are not derivative works of each other and hence. It's also important to take the (stated) intent of the work's author into consideration, If the author(s) has(have) given such a statement, and if it is equal to or more permissible than the common understanding of the GPL, then that would of course be the most usable information to go with and the rest of the discussion is unnecessary. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
I just wanted to point out that this thread has now gone quite off topic. The original question concerned bundling GPL with EPL, not GPL with proprietary code. Mike Milinkovich mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org +1.613.220.3223 -Original Message- From: David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk Sender: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:58:51 To: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi; license-discuss@opensource.org Reply-To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution Henrik Ingo wrote: Yes. However, when referring to the GPL FAQ, I actually believe it represents the common understanding of a rather large portion of the FOSS community, not just the understanding of Stallman or perhaps Moglen. (Granted, for many it is just that they accept whatever the Whilst Rick takes the view that the law doesn't allow the FSF to achieve its objectives, and there is a bias amongst people enquiring here towards people who want to leverage GPLed code without revealing their proprietary code. My impression is that most people who use the GPL to protect their own intellectual creations actually tend to believe that the GPL protects against commercial exploitation even more than the FSF states, or would want it to do so. FSF says, for others it might be they don't want to argue with the FSF, but even so, their acceptance then contributes to the common understanding.) Hence I find it a useful though not legally authoritative document. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:40:52PM +0200, Henrik Ingo wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: In that, the only way the opinion of the license's author really seems to factor into things once the license has already been written is as a contribution to the common understanding of the license. For that purpose, however, it is only one of many potential inputs to the common understanding of the license. Yes. However, when referring to the GPL FAQ, I actually believe it represents the common understanding of a rather large portion of the FOSS community, not just the understanding of Stallman or perhaps Moglen. (Granted, for many it is just that they accept whatever the FSF says, for others it might be they don't want to argue with the FSF, but even so, their acceptance then contributes to the common understanding.) Hence I find it a useful though not legally authoritative document. I agree that appears to be the case, in this instance. The real point I was trying to make however is that the GPL FAQ seems to function well as a safe baseline for what is very likely allowed. Most people who disagree with the FSF interpretation (such as Rosen in this thread) usually believe a more permissible interpretation of copyright law is correct. Hence, it seems while Rosen writes that the FSF position is wrong, in this particular case they both would agree that 2 separately running programs (sharing no code) are not derivative works of each other and hence. I think there is actually a lot of agreement in circles that favor closed source software that the GPL might actually be *less* permissive than the FSF's FAQ might lead a reader to believe. I speak not of lawyers and managers in closed source software vendor organizations, but people farther down the chain, such as daycoder employees and people who form their opinions of IT matters based on the marketing materials of closed source software vendors. A lot of these people do not make much difference in the way the license is understood by those who actually have to make decisions about whether to use the software distributed under the terms of those licenses, though, so you're probably right in terms of the effects of all this. It's also important to take the (stated) intent of the work's author into consideration, If the author(s) has(have) given such a statement, and if it is equal to or more permissible than the common understanding of the GPL, then that would of course be the most usable information to go with and the rest of the discussion is unnecessary. Not necessarily. It's actually in cases where the software author's interpretation and intent is less permissive than the FSF's FAQ would lead us to believe, because it creates additional potential legal dangers. If the FSF's is the more restrictive interpretation, you then need to consider cases where the FSF has taken up the mantle of defender of works for which it arguably did not have a notable direct copyright interest, as in the Busybox mess and the brief period of bullying small Linux distribution projects whose maintainers believed they complied with the license by linking to upstream sources. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: If the FSF's is the more restrictive interpretation, you then need to consider cases where the FSF has taken up the mantle of defender of works for which it arguably did not have a notable direct copyright interest, as in the Busybox mess You appear to be mixing up either SFLC or SFC with FSF. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:51:34PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: If the FSF's is the more restrictive interpretation, you then need to consider cases where the FSF has taken up the mantle of defender of works for which it arguably did not have a notable direct copyright interest, as in the Busybox mess You appear to be mixing up either SFLC or SFC with FSF. You are correct. I'm aware of the error, and still make it sometimes. I apologize. As I recall it was the SFLC, though I am not 100% certain. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
