'GPL encumbrance problems'

[David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)]

mailinglists at erwinrol.com wrote:

>On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 07:49 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>  
>
>>> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:04, Erwin Rol wrote:
>>> 
>>    
>>
>>>> > So GPL zealots, as you call them, can implement libraries that are
>>>> > compatible with other libraries, without violating anybodies copyright.
>>>> > And they can put libraries under the GPL and force you to follow that
>>>> > GPL when you use their libraries. You, of course, can reimplement those
>>>> > libraries too if you want and put them under a different license.
>>>      
>>>
>>> 
>>> And you'll know they are zealots when they make the claim (which
>>> they officially do...) that you are violating their copyright if
>>> you distribute an executable that might link to a GPL'd library
>>> even if you don't include *any* GPL'd code in your distribution.
>>    
>>
>
>Does your application work without the GPL library? No? So your
>application _needs_ someone else his copyrighted work to function. So
>you _need_ the work someone else did to make money? And you _demand_
>that it comes for free and gratis! If you don't like the GPL license of
>the library, rewrite it, nothing stops you from doing that. 
>
>  
>
>>> (An exception exists if you can prove that there are compatible
>>> non-GPL'd libraries - which is pretty bizarre, since that in
>>> no way affects what is being copied in your distribution or
>>> how they might claim ownership of it).
>>    
>>
>
>It all comes down to; i want your work gratis, so i can make money with
>it. And if you dislike that i call you a yealot and bitch and complain
>that it is unfair. 
>
>Can someone please point me to the law that says "you are forced to use
>GPL software" since apparently some people feel they are forced to use
>this unfair GPL license.
>
>- Erwin
>
and also wrote:

>On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 07:33 -0700, David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)
>wrote:
>  
>
>>> mailinglists at erwinrol.com wrote:
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>> The point of the goose/gander paragraph is simply linking to someone 
>>> else's code does *not* contaminate your code with their license.  Lots 
>>> of talk and FUD about this but linking doesn't foist a license since the 
>>> headers and interface (which aren't protectable elements) are all that 
>>> is copied.  Just because you program uses a GPL library *does not* 
>>> contaminate it.  As an example, I somehow doubt that an Oracle 
>>> implementation running on Linux makes no use of GPLed library or system 
>>> calls.  Same for VMware and lots of other proprietary software that runs 
>>> on a Linux platform.
>>    
>>
>
>Linking is a "technical" term and is not of importance for the license,
>the more legal term is "deriving". If your work is derived from GPL work
>you have to put your work under the GPL (or compatible license). 
>
>For Oracle running on Linux, I would love to know what GPL libraries
>they use? I bet the don't use any GPL library, they will use LGPL
>libraries like the C-Library. The same with VMWare, I believe their GUI
>is now GTK based, and GTK is licensed under the LGPL. 
>
>For the Linux kernel, the copyright holder clearly stated that running
>programs in userspace on top of the OS does not count as "deriving", and
>hence those programs do not have to be GPLed simply because they can run
>on Linux.
>
>  
>
>>> Again, IANAL, but I find the argument that the library somehow gets 
>>> "included" in the program to be totally bogus as long as said library is 
>>> a shared object that is still normally distributed.  This argument might 
>>> be made for static libraries or if you literally copy and compile the 
>>> code but that's a different animal.
>>    
>>
>
>Once again you are mixing up "linking" and "deriving". The fact that a
>library is a shared object or "source included" does not change the fact
>that your product is derived from that library code or not. A good
>indication seems to be if your program would also function without the
>GPL library, and i bet it will not. 
>
>The easiest way out is "if you don't like it, don't use it", it really
>is that simple. 
>
>- Erwin
>  
>
Sorry, but not from the perspective of copyright law (which is all that 
matters).  Copyright law does not recognize including a library as 
making the including work a derived version.  Lots of case law 
establishing this so don't argue with me about whether its right or 
wrong.  If you want it to work differently work to change the law but be 
careful about it since there are lots of other folks like Microsoft and 
SCO that would also like to be able to impose a license on anyone who 
writes code for their systems. 

The only way copyright law recognizes a derived work is if someone 
*modifies* the copyrighted work of another.  Thus, if I modify a GPLed 
library for my own purposes and distribute a program that includes the 
modified GPLed code, I am bound by the terms of the GPL for my modified 
library.  If I write some software that works with an established 
interface and someone happens to run a copy of my program on a system 
where the functionality implementing that interface happens to be GPLed 
code, I am under no obligation to suddenly GPL my program.  More 
specifically, I may write some code that will compile on Solaris, HP-UX 
and Linux and use a variety of run-time libraries that are common to 
*nix systems, why because this program also happens to compile on Linux 
would I be obligated to GPL my code?

Cheers,
Dave