[OT] The GPL and possible violations

[Mike McCarty]

Joel Rees wrote:
> 
> On 2006.2.21, at 04:20 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
> 
>> Don Bedsole wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Ok, taking the LGPL and GPL at face value,
> 
> 
> ... or not, as the case may be, ...
> 
>>  with what seems to be
>> their intended interpretations, and presuming that the courts
>> would actually enforce what they seem to say, and AIUI...
>>
>>> Ok, I have to admit, I have not been playing close attention to this 
>>> discussion, but what I have seen has raised a question for me.  I 
>>> would like a clarification.  Do I, as an end user have the right to 
>>> install non-GPL software (e.g. RealPlayer) on my Linux box if it 
>>> links to GPL software?  Can
>>
>>
>> Yes. AFAICT, no restriction is placed on the receiver of bootleg
> 
> 
> bootleg? Do you mean to imply the GPL is a means of stealing someone 
> else's intellectual property or something?

No, not at all. I was using a figure of speech. I meant only
"bootleg from the point of view of the GPL". IOW, if I wrote
a program which I kept as secret as possible, and linked with
GPL code, and then distributed, then that would be "bootleg"
so to speak.

>> applications by either GPL or LGPL. OTOH, IANAL, and there may
>> be *other* precedent which applies to such recipients.
> 
> 
> ???

Well, IANAL. It may be that receiving a program which contains
GPL stuff, and *also* contains proprietary stuff, and using it
in some way makes one an accessory or something. I'm just trying
not to say "Yes, you can do that. There's no problem." when
there may be due to some court case or other I have no knowledge
of.

>>> I install non-GPL software which links to anything it wants to on my 
>>> computer?
>>
>>
>> With all caveats, yes. But remember, someone who knowingly receives
>> stolen goods is known as a "fence" and commits an offence. I do not
>> know what collateral effects there may be. But AFAICT, neither
>> LGPL nor GPL prohibit that.
> 
> 
> fah -- more gratuitous talk of stolen goods. Maybe it is you who wants 
> to steal someone else's hard work?

No, I'm talking about stuff which is GPL being hijacked into proprietary
stuff.

Do you have some sort of grudge against me or something? You seem
to be trying to misread what I write.

>> >  Is it legal for non-GPL software distributors (RealPlayer, et. al)
>>
>>> to furnish software to me which links to GPL software?  Wouldn't it 
>>> only be a
>>
>>
>> NO. This is precisely what is prohibited by GPL, and as I read it,
>> also by LGPL.
> 
> 
> He did not say _linked_, he said _links_. Can you read English? If it is 

Certainly, started speaking English at the age of 3 or so, right after
Spanish.

> distributed linked to GPL-ed software and is not licensed compatibly, 
> that would be against the implicit contract of the GPL, but not 
> necessarily the LGPL. If it is merely possible to link, that is 
> explicitly allowed by the GPL. See the mention in the GPL of the header 
> files if you don't understand why that would be.

Well, you can take whatever position you like, and I don't want
to argue. I will say this: What you just said is contrary to
what Richard Stallman says is the intent of the LGPL. His position
is that if you include the header file, that is enough to invoke
section 6 requiring disclosure.

> There is a gray area involving distributing both the software which can 
> be linked and the means to automatically link them without user 
> intervention. (And that's the fine line FreeBSD gets ever so close to.)

I think the whole thing is murky. In particular, the theory espoused
in the LGPL that if you link to an LGPL library, then the executable
becomes a derived work, etc. is on uncertain and AFAIK untested legal
grounds.

>>> problem if I were to somehow redistribute the non-GPL--GPL software 
>>> combination?  In other words, can non-GPL distributors (again 
>>> RealPlayer for example), give me whatever software they want to, 
>>> which links to whatever it wants to, as long as I, the end-user, do 
>>> not distribute the resulting GPL-non--GPL combination?  Thank you.
>>
>>
>> No, they cannot. This is precisely what the GPL, and AIUI the LGPL
>> prohibit.
> 
> 
> And once again I must point out that your opinion is in direct 
> contradiction with mine, unless you know of specific things which, say, 

Well, again, I don't want to argue. I'll just point out that the
plain language of the LGPL and the direct statement of Richard Stallman
disagree with your opinion.

> RealPlayer is distributed pre-linked against, or, I suppose, if you know 
> that RealPlayer is using some automatic linking mechanism that goes 
> beyond the Linux link editor.
> 
> I hope you are over the sinus and the fevers, but if you've got the time 

Thank you for those kind words. I'm taking Amoxicillin now, and the
fever has abated. Still got a bad cough, though.

> to be posting such opinions, get the time to read up on copyright until 
> you understand that software which is written to an API is not 
> publishing either the API or the library which implements it.

The purpose of the LGPL is to allow one to modify the behavior
of programs which use the LGPLd library. Any program which
eventually gets connected to the LGPLd library must be provided
in a form which permits the customer to reverse engineer it, and
modify it for his own use, but not necessarily for redistribution.
That's the plain wording of the LGPL, and it's the plain statement of
Richard Stallman that simply including the header is enough to
invoke those sections.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!