Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Mon Jul 28 01:19:13 UTC 2008
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause
>> actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole,
> It does. The terms are permissions, the conditions are requirements
> for the exercise of the permissions.
GPL terms are not only permissions, they are restrictions as well.
> It doesn't take away any other
> permissions you might have.
Normally I would have permission to apply terms of my choice. When
distributing something as a part of a GPL-encumbered work, I don't. I
also can't use your choice or your lawyer's choice. The GPL says it
must be "this License".
> That it does is the incorrect assumption
> that's misleading you.
That's what the license says.
> Consider this scenario:
> John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that contains two
> source files: lib.c and main.c. lib.c was developed to be released as
> a separate library, under the modified (3-clause) BSD license (so
> these are the headers it carries), whereas main.c was developed to be
> released under the GPL (so these are the headers it carries). John
> A. publishes the whole, named gnothing, under the GPLv2+, and never
> publishes lib.c in any other way.
> Wanda B. Foreman downloads gnothing, and notices lib.c would be really
> useful in his project, linstall. She thus modifies gnothing by
> removing main.c and the build scripts, and then adds lib.c to her
> version control system, along with changes to the build machinery to
> have lib.c built and linked into his own program. She then publishes
> linstall, under the GPLv3+.
> Ken C. Farsight has access to Wanda's VCS repository, and sees lib.c
> show up there. It provides just the feature he wanted for his bsdown
> Free Software program, that he's always distributed under the 3-clause
> BSD license. He copies lib.c into bsdown and releases a new version
> of bsdown.
> Evelyn D. Scent maintains a non-Free fork of bsdown called macrash, so
> she takes this new release containing lib.c, merges the add-on
> features she maintains, and publishes a new release, under the usual
> restrictive EULA, known to be compatible with the 3-clause BSD
> Please ask your lawyer questions such as:
> - Has any party had his/her license to distribute gnothing or lib.c
> automatically terminated?
> - Can John A. Hacker stop any of the other 3 from distributing lib.c
> in linstall, bsdown, or macrash, under the licenses given or implied
> by the description above, or even by itself under the modified BSD
> license, without a copy of the GPL?
> - Can Evelyn be stopped by any of the other 3 from distributing this
> version of macrash containing lib.c, under the usual EULA?
> then let us know how he justifies the answers.
No reason to ask - the people using the alternative licenses have no
need to agree to the GPL terms for the work as a whole that includes
GPL-encumbered parts. The questionable situation would be if Ken or
Evelyn also needed the complete gnothing or a modification and thus had
to agree to GPL terms before extracting a part of it in a way that
>> Would this imaginative interpretation also permit sharing of
>> GPL-covered components modified to link with proprietary libraries
>> among people who otherwise have the right to do so
> AFAIK the GPL doesn't stop anyone from adding dependencies on
> non-GPLed libraries to GPLed programs. In fact, this is very common,
> in the particular case of system libraries on non-Free operating
There is a special exception for system libraries. You can't use that
as an example. And the FSF does routinely claim that a dependency on a
non-GPL-compatible library is a violation if the functions are unique
and no GPL-compatible implementation exists. (This is bizarre in my
opinion because the copyright infringement status can change with no
change to the code in question if a new library suddenly exists somewhere).
> It doesn't grant permission for the GPLed program be distributed in a
> form that contains the library or derived portions thereof, without
> also offering the corresponding sources of the library under the GPL,
> but if you distribute the GPLed program in source code form, you're
> covered, and if you can create an object form of the program that does
> not contain code derived from the library, and then distribute it,
> you're also covered.
That's absolutely wrong, with the exception granted for standard
operating system libraries. Actually it is questionable legally, but
the FSF position is that the dependency creates a derived work. If you
can find archives back to 1993 or so, look up the history of RIPEM and
why the FSF considered a source distribution to be infringing for its
use of the gmp library. I'd try to explain it but you wouldn't believe it.
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the fedora-list