Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:36:42 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: <davids@webmaster.com>, <chat@freebsd.org> Cc: TM4525@aol.com Subject: RE: GPL vs BSD Licence Message-ID: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNCEJEEPAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGENNPGAA.davids@webmaster.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 2:38 PM > To: tedm@toybox.placo.com; chat@freebsd.org > Cc: TM4525@aol.com > Subject: RE: GPL vs BSD Licence > > > > > That is one of the arguments. But, the GPL is concerned with > > distribution. > > I think this has been raised before with them. I think that > the scenario > > was, if I make a program that dynamically links into GPL, then I > > distribute > > both my program and the GPL code that it links into, do I have to put my > > program under GPL? I think their answer was yes - they argued that when > > the linking takes place and who links it is immaterial, and > that the fact > > that your program cannot run without their stuff means that > when your code > > is running, that your program and their stuff become as a > single program. > > This argument is obviously, IMO, absurd. Suppose I make a > product that > *can* link to a GPL'd library but could, of course, also link to any other > library that provided the same interface. The FSF is arguing that > as soon as > somebody links it to the GPL'd library, it becomes a derived work even > though it wasn't one before. > No, they are arguing that the RESULT of the linking becomes a derived work, NOT the original, unlinked work itself. This is a fine line here, and one that is more of a legal argument than anything else. I think the idea of it goes something along these lines. Suppose you distribute a non-functional program along with instructions that to make it functional, the user must fetch some GPL program and link that in. No problem there. But then suppose you distribute the same program along with the GPL program and a set of instructions the user must follow to build it, and to get it running. One again, no problem there. But then, suppose you distribute your program AND the GPL program AND when your program is run, it automatically pulls in the GPL program and links into it and does it's thing. THAT I think is where they are arguing that your crossing the line. >From one view of things, they do have a point - as your third distribution is in effect a way to dodge the effects of the GPL. But of course from a strict copyright interpretation point of view, I think that this is the weakest argument the FSF is making about the GPL because I think the history of court cases of these nature has shown that courts generally say that even when code is intermixed, that each entity retains it's own copyright. > Nothing that you can do with a work after it's produced can > turn that work > into a derivative work of another work. That isn't and wasn't ever the point. Your "you" here is the secondary user not the original author. The example I gave was that the "you" was the original coder/copyright holder. > > Even if the program had been designed from the beginning to > work with an > interface that was currently only implemented in a GPL'd library, I would > still find the argument absurd (though slightly less so). Once again, I've said it several times before but you don't seem to get it, so I'll say it again. The GPL is concerned with DISTRIBUTION -not- MANUFACTURE. If you design a program from the beginning that works with an interface only implemented in a GPL library, then there is NO problem if that code is NOT GPL'd, AS LONG AS you aren't distributing a compiled version of it that links in the GPL library. If the end users -must- go compile in some GPL code that is perfectly fine as long as THEY have to consciously choose to do it, NOT YOU (or your program). > > I can't imagine that anyone who understood what it is that > grants you a > copyright and what a 'derivative' work really is would find this > argument at > all persuasive. > You know I said this already on Tuesday, the GPL is concerned with REDISTRIBUTION not COPYRIGHT. Why do you insist in ignoring this? You know, I really find this to be extremely ironic. I am a big opponent of the GPL license and always have been. But I find myself playing devils advocate here for the GPL because so many of you who should damn well know better quite obviously don't know the first damn thing about the GPL. Clue phone ringing here! DON'T TRY ARGUING AGAINST SOMETHING YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT. If you thing the GPL is a pile of poop, as I do, THEN LEARN THE DAMN THING BETTER THAN MOST OF THE GPL ADVOCATES OUT THERE. Trust me, IT AIN'T HARD!! 95% of the GPL advocates out there don't know the first damn thing about the GPL and undoubtedly have never completely read through the thing, MUCH LESS have read the supporting philosophy and writing around it. I see GPL bigots ALL THE TIME arguing about how great GPL code is and how the GPL is so all fired wonderful because of this and that which isn't even IN the damn license!!! Read the GPL. Read the FSF's website and RMS's writings. Read the BSD copyright. THEN if you want to go bash the GPL please do so!!! Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNCEJEEPAA.tedm>