'GPL encumbrance problems'

[David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)]

debian at herakles.homelinux.org

> David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Whether it impinges on someone else's rights depends on the licence 
>>> (say SCO) grant to those doing the (re)implementation and the rights 
>>> (say SCO) actually have. Copyright and a licence to copy are not 
>>> quite the same.
>>
>>
>>
>> Copyright *LAW* is all I care about.  IANAL, but based on lots of 
>> reading over at Groklaw, the applicable U.S. copyright law 
>
>
> US law has no standing here, or in Europe....
>
That's just it.  Each country has its own interpretation and 
implementation of copyright law which usually complies with 
international treaties (at least the law as written complies but that's 
a whole different discussion).  Contract law, which is what governs 
license agreements, may or may not be recognized and, if it is 
recognized for traditional contracts, still may not be recognized for 
passive software license agreements.  One of the reasons companies end 
up starting a subsidiary in any country where they do significant 
business is so that all of the contracts can be local.

When push comes to shove, only copyright law matters when in comes to 
enforcing usage.  Copyright law (both in the U.S. and as generally 
recognized by most countries) does not recognize a computer program as 
being a derivative work just because it links to some other work.  The 
GPL can define it that way but I don't know of copyright law in any 
country that supports that definition.

>>> If, on another hand, I grant you use under the terms of the GPL, 
>>> then you are still free to write your software, but if you link your 
>>> program with mine (isn't that what the headers are for?), then any 
>>> distribution you do must be under the terms of the GPL, and you must 
>>> (if asked) produce the source on demand.
>>
>>
>>
>> And if I distribute my software under a license of my choice and an 
>> end user happens to substitute a GPLed library for the unencumbered 
>
>
> What the user does re my rights is not your concern. However, if the 
> user violates my rights, that is a concern to me. 

And that's all I'm saying.  I am just asking that you don't drag me into 
it though even if it was my program that the user ran that included your 
library.  That is between you and the end user as far as I am 
concerned.  You could try to prevent this via your license but it would 
be hard to enforce since the end user may not even be aware of it.
 
BTW, just as I was wrapping up what I wanted to say in my previous post, 
I went back through it and emphasized that I was only talking about U.S. 
copyright law when I realized that the specifics I was stating were 
probably unique to U.S. law.  IANAL but my guess is that the [L]GPL 
provisions regarding copying, use and distribution are enforceable as 
somewhat unique licensing that is valid under copyright law both here 
and elsewhere.  I would be very surprised if a viral interpretation of 
the linking provisions would be held enforceable, again, here or elsewhere.

Cheers,
Dave