*I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DETAILS OF THE GPL* (My copyright experience has more to do with music than software)
Having said that, my vague recollection of the GPL from years ago is that if you use even the tiniest amount of GPL'ed code in a new program, then you have to release the new program and its code under GPL in full. *Assuming that is true*, their obligations under the GPL basically depend on whether their proprietary program and the modified POP3 server are considered to be one program for GPL purposes or not. (This is the core issue which you have identified yourself in your post about "derivative work"). This appears to be more a question of fact, not a question of law - presumably it will depend on the precise circumstances of the case. There may even be case law on the point (assuming you're talking about US law for the moment since the GPL was conceived under the US law). Based solely on your description below, which seems to imply that the two are separate programs, I would be inclined to say that the company can satisfy its GPL obligations simply by releasing its modified POP3 server under the GPL. My days of dealing with US copyright law are several years in the past but as far as I can remember (without going into a lecture on copyright law), the fact that the proprietary program depends on the modified POP3 server which in turn depends on the GPL POP3 server does NOT make it (or a combination of the two) a derivative work of the GPL POP3 server - there would have to be some copying of code or atleast of functionality. It is of course very likely that the modified POP3 server is derivative of the GPL POP3 server, but that still means the company will satisfy its obligations by releasing the modified server under GPL. (There may be some case law on this point especially in relation to analogous cases about, say, music incorporated into movies..I could be wrong but this is my first gut instinct) The issue of whether the proprietary program+modified POP3 server form one package, the entirety of which must be released under the GPL depend more on the GPL and what it requires than any principle of copyright law if you see what I mean. I tend to agree with the final conclusion at the bottom of your message. Badri > Hi. > > Here I am again, trying to abuse the goodwill of the legal initiates > lurking on the list with a hypothetical scenario. > > 1. Suppose someone writes a GPLed POP3 server. > > 2. Suppose company X, which develops a proprietary program, needs some > of the functionality of a POP3 server. > > 3. Suppose they take the GPLed POP3 server and modify it substantially > to suit their needs, and modify their program to talk to it. > > At this point, their program depends on the modified version of the > GPLed program. It could use some other POP3 server, but that would > also need to be modified in non-trivial, company-specific ways to > serve their purpose. > > 4. Now suppose they sell their program, together with the modified POP > server. > > What are the company's obligations under the GPL? > > Now, clearly, their program itself is not a work derived from the GPLed > one. But one popular perception is that the product (i.e. their program > plus the GPLed server) is a work derived from the both their proprietary > one, and the GPLed one; and that the terms of the GPL thus apply to the > whole. > > Is that really true? > > Someone (who isn't a lawyer) said: > > A <<product>> is not a "work of authorship". Copyright is about > "works of authorship" and cannot be used to allow or disallow > behavior based on whether you have <<combined>> two things at an > engineering level to make a product. > > And that the combination described above results neither in a derived > work, nor in a copyrightable compilation, but merely in a parcel of > goods; and that since no infringing work has been created, all the > company has to do in order to comply with the GPL is to make their > modified POP server source code available. > > Thoughts? > > -- ams > >
