gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:57:11 +0200

< misc.int-property and misc.legal.computing added >

I have some trouble grasping the concept (legal basis) of "GPL 
incompatibility". Please help me out. TIA.

< forward quoted >

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 12:07 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Barak Zalstein wrote:
> > [...]
> > > While creating a mixture of GPL, BSD, CPL, other similarly licensed
> > > source files and linking them together seems to not violate user
> > > freedoms, CPL marked as incompatible by gnu.org is good enough reason to
> > > say no thanks.
> >
> > "GPL incompatibility" is a myth. With respect to the CPL (and also
> > EPL, ASL, OSL, etc.) it simply means that RMS hates patents. You should
> > read this (and follow all the embedded links; recursively ;-) ):
> 
> No it's not a myth, and this proves again you are on a religious crusade
> against the GPL and the FSF.
> 
> The FSF states in the site about the GPL/CPL incompatibility:
> 
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html
> 
> Common Public License Version 1.0
>         This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the
>         GPL.
> 
>         The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because
>         it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(1)
>         For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that
>         the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>         requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(2)
>         incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
> 
> (1) is why it is incompatible, you can't place extra restrictions on a
> GPL'ed work, and you're recasting the work, so you have to respect the
> author's condition for recasting: use of the GNU GPL
> 
> (2) They don't see the CPL as bad because of patent conditions, they're
> just stating that since restrictions are added, they are incompatible
> with the current version of the GNU GPL.
> 
> Eat my dust 'lex.

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > (1) is why it is incompatible, you can't place extra restrictions on a
> > GPL'ed work,
> 
> The CPL doesn't place any restrictions whatsoever on the GPL'ed work.
> 
> > and you're recasting the work,
> 
> I'm not recasting the work. Linking/aggregation is NOT "recasting". If
> you "recast"/modify the work (create a derivative work) *then* the
> resulting work remains under the same licenses as the original. Even if
> it was a BSD'ed (or something like that) work.

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > [...]
> > > (1) is why it is incompatible, you can't place extra restrictions on a
> > > GPL'ed work,
> >
> > The CPL doesn't place any restrictions whatsoever on the GPL'ed work.
> >
> > > and you're recasting the work,
> >
> > I'm not recasting the work.
> 
> You know the purpose of a linker?  It changes symbolic references in
> the code to fit the locations where the stuff and other material
> actually gets loaded into the address space.

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > You know the purpose of a linker?  It changes symbolic references in
> > the code to fit the locations where the stuff and other material
> > actually gets loaded into the address space.
> 
> Whatever***. On mainframes (things like Cobol, PLX, etc.) this
> is usually done by the SMP/E (installation and maintenance
> product) by customers. Forget this technical morass that merely
> obscures the fundamental issue for a moment. Let's talk about
> purely source code distribution. How can an aggregation of the
> CPL'ed and the GPL'ed stuff (e.g. in a tarball) possibly
> trigger "GPL incompatibility"?
> 
> regards,
> alexander.
> 
> ***) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm
> 
> <quote>
> 
> If the framing process does not create a derivative work, then
> mounting [...] does not create a derivative work. What is more,
> the ninth circuit erred in assuming that normal means of
> mounting and displaying art are easily reversible. A painting
> is placed in a wooden "stretcher" as part of the framing
> process; this leads to some punctures (commonly tacks or
> staples), may entail trimming the edges of the canvas, and may
> affect the surface of the painting as well. Works by Jackson
> Pollock are notoriously hard to mount without damage, given the
> thickness of their paint. As a prelude to framing, photographs,
> prints, and posters may be mounted on stiff boards using wax
> sheets, but sometimes glue or another more durable substance is
> employed to create the bond.
> 
> </quote>

regards,
alexander.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]