[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL traitor !
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: GPL traitor ! |
Date: |
Sat, 9 May 2009 12:36:13 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386)) |
In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Do you mean that if somebody adds functionality to GPL program, and
>> arranges for this new functionality to be called through a socket call
>> (substitute technically correct terms here) rather than a normal function
>> call, that somebody can remain within the terms of the GPL without
>> licensing his new stuff under the GPL, regardless of how intertwined the
>> new functionality is with the original program? If so, I think you're
>> mistaken. But please try and convince me otherwise.
> Yes, that's what I mean. Doing it by function call is OK as well.
> The only thing that forces the foreign code to come under the GPL
> is if the binary program is built as a statically linked whole
> incorporating the GPL and non-GPL code. It is that binding into a
> single work that makes the non-GPL portion fall under the "work as
> a whole" clause and requires that all of it be distributed under
> the GPL.
That's one of the things that requires GPL licensing. The overarching
thing that mandates new code being licensed under the GPL is its being a
modification of a GPL program.
> You appear to believe that modifying the source of a GPLed program
> so that it invokes a function which is provided separately under a
> non-GPL license violates the GPL even when the modified program is
> distributed *as source*. Is that true?
No. If the invoked function is truly separate (e.g., calling an emailing
library function from GCC), it needn't be GPL'd. If the invoked
function is essentially a part of the calling program, it must also be
GPL.
This is covered by section 2 of GPL2 ("... and can be reasonably
considered independent and separate works in themselves ...") and
section 5 of GPL3 ("... which are not by their nature extensions of the
covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger
program ....").
> If so, then you are certainly incorrect, since copyright law contains
> no concept of a computer program "working".
Sadly, neither do some software engineers. ;-(
> Copyright law doesn't consider functionality, just text, just
> expression.
Copyright licenses for software do however deal with functionality.
Copyright law also has the notion of "derived works".
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: GPL traitor !, (continued)
- Re: GPL traitor !, Rjack, 2009/05/08
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/05/08
- Re: GPL traitor !, Rjack, 2009/05/08
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/05/09
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/05/08
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/05/08
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/05/08
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hadron, 2009/05/08
- Re: GPL traitor !,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: GPL traitor !, Rjack, 2009/05/09
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hadron, 2009/05/09
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/05/09
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/05/10
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/05/11
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/05/11
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/05/11
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/05/11
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/05/11
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/05/08