On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Scott James Remnant<[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 16:25 -0700, Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi) wrote: > >> This is not FUD and did not mean it that way either. This is what I have >> heard from some licensing lawyers relating to usage of GPLv3 software >> while working on my own startup. And I have heard this same concern from >> friends in other companies as well. >> > The problem is that there's a lot of anti-GPLv3 sentiment out there from > people who haven't actually read it. As a Linux distributor who works > in the mobile and embedded space, we've encountered a lot of it from > companies who fear that it prevents them from using Linux. > > When we've gone through their problems, we've nearly always found that > there's no text in the GPLv3 even close to what they believe. Sometimes > the misunderstanding comes from earlier GPLv3 drafts, and is with regard > to text or clauses that never made it to the final licence. > >> The specific concern I have heard as quoted to me is relating to >> language in GPLv3 relating to 'intimate data communication' with GPLv3 >> communication. >> > The section you are referring to is the most basic one, the definition > of "Source Code": > > 1. Source Code. > > The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work > for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source > form of a work. > > A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official > standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of > interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that > is widely used among developers working in that language. > > The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other > than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of > packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major > Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that > Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an > implementation is available to the public in source code form. A > "Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component > (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system > (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to > produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it. > > The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all > the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable > work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to > control those activities. However, it does not include the work's > System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free > programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but > which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source > includes interface definition files associated with source files for > the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically > linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, > such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those > subprograms and other parts of the work. > > The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users > can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding > Source. > > The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that > same work. > >> If you had standalone tools/command or utility programs that don't talk >> to each other, I suspect it would have been ok. >> >> Upstart is one of those applications that everyone in the system needs >> to communicate via D-Bus messaging where the Message API is defined by a >> GPLv3 application in this case Upstart. >> > The Upstart D-Bus interface is very much intended to be a public > interface that any software may use without licence contamination. The > D-Bus protocol is an official freedesktop.org standard, and the Upstart > interface is published and documented over that protocol according to > the standard. > > This is a long way from "intimate" (the old IPC interface 0.3 uses could > be described as intimate, and one of the reasons it was dropped was to > avoid this issue). > > If this needs specific addressing, I could add a comment to the > dbus/*.xml (which define the interfaces) explicitly stating that > software may freely use these interfaces.
If that's the case, I would explicitly note that the ideas contained within are public knowledge and aren't GPLv3. Some engineering orgs seem to get really uneasy about stuff like that. IIRC there was a soft quantifiable amount of information that could be `conveyed' before one would be bound by a given license, or some such.. -Garrett -- upstart-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
