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: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 13:39:41 +0200

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 18:57 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
> > On 2004-07-07, Rui Miguel Seabra <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Book references have zero in common with software libraries.
> > >
> > > You can read the book without looking at the references.
> > >
> > > You can't run the program without the software libraries.
> > >
> > > See the light?
> >
> > Suppose X requires Y to function.  Later, someone provides Y2, which is a
> > compatible clean-room implementation of Y, so that X will function with Y2.
> > Under your interpretation, X would be a derivative work of Y up until the
> > time Y2 is written, and then would no longer be a derivative work.
> 
> Notice that that could be seen as a way to circunvent copyright law,
> which would be seen as a violation in itself.

"The church of GNU denounce copyright as a evil plot... unless this is 
 connected with the direct attacks of the legality of GPL. ;-)" 

                                                          -- Bezroukov

> 
> > This is legally absurd.  The status of X as a derivative work of something
> > is independent entirely on conditions at the time of creation of X.  It 
> > cannot
> > change by the subsequent creation of new works.
> 
> It is a different work, because Y2 is different from Y.
> 
> > The relationship "depends on in order to function" is simply outside the
> > scope of copyright law.
> 
> Software has many niceties. One of them is that certain things are
> equivalent to others. Some software needing a library to work is the
> same as a book comprising of some stuff by one author and some stuff by
> others, written at different times.
> 
> It still boils down to: to include said software you need to agree with
> the authors license, since NOTHING ELSE allows you to recast the
> software.

I'm not recasting anything. Assume that I don't even bother to read 
the GPL'ed sources (I read only the spec). It's a black box as far 
as I'm concerned. That tarball is NOT "recasted software".

> 
> Executing software is the equivalent to casting.

"The act of running the Program is not restricted"

                     -- GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

regards,
alexander.


reply via email to

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