![GNU is Not Unix GNU is Not Unix](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/gnu_64.png)
![Books Books](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/books_64.png)
![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
![Mozilla Mozilla](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/mozilla_64.png)
![Operating Systems Operating Systems](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/os_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![BSD BSD](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/bsd_64.png)
Open Source Licensing 193
Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law | |
author | Lawrence Rosen |
pages | 400 |
publisher | Prentice Hall |
rating | 9 |
reviewer | Peter Wayner |
ISBN | 0131487876 |
summary | Major open source licenses are dissected and compared; invaluable anti-FUD for businesses and enlightening for all free software enthusiasts. |
This has been a particular headache for embedded systems manufacturers. If the engineers take advantage of the openness of Linux and make some tweaks to the part that is officially Linux, the company must to distribute their changes too. If they merely create software that works like a regular program, then there's no need to distribute anything. (Notice the ASP in the URL!) I know at least one very sharp businessman who explained to me how he carefully made sure the proprietary code in his system would only be dynamically linked to the GPL-protected code. If he left things statically linked, he would be legally bound to release all of his code and his investors wouldn't allow that.
"You had to work with developers. We had to create a build process that very carefully keeps things separate. If we weren't able to do that, we wouldn't have been acquired," he told me.
Rosen's book is a guide for anyone who's trying to walk that line. It dissects the major (GPL, BSD, Netscape, Apache, etc.) as a lawyer would: this kind of legal writing is always eye opening for me ,because the courts often make decisions differently from programmers. They value abstract issues like damages and pay attention to the often nebulous concept of who "owns" a piece of code. Thanks to the hard work of the lawyers at SCO, the distinctions will continue to be important to everyone experimenting with open source.
There are a surprisingly large number of distinctions, both big and small, between the different licenses. For most of us, the differences don't matter. But it's fascinating to watch a lawyer take them apart and compare and contrast them. The BSD license and the Apache license aren't the same, even though they're close cousins. Who would have known?
This book is a wonderful start on the topic. But by the end, it's clear that it's only just the beginning. There are deep philosophical questions awaiting the movement. The distinction between statically and dynamically linked code was easier to define in the past, long before modern languages like Java and the emergence of the Internet. Are web services specified by a hard-coded WSDL file, an example of dynamic or static linking? Can the DNS service change a static IP address into a dynamic link? Enquiring minds want to know. Rosen's book is a great way to begin the exploration of these topics.
You can purchase Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Even without the book, (Score:5, Informative)
His Trademark law [rosenlaw.com] article and his explanation of fair use [rosenlaw.com] seem particularly useful.
Re:Even without the book, (Score:2)
"A company doesn't acquire trademark rights simply by choosing a trademark or even by stating its intent do use it. Trademarks
So if I find out that Microsoft are just about to launch a new soup called 'Wibble', I can start selling my own 'Wibble' soup first, then claim they are infringing my trademark when they launch? There must be something that prevents this.
Re:Even without the book, (Score:2)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Quick! Rename Gentoo to Shorthorn!
Because Trademarks are such that anything remotely similar to a establish trademark is still infringing, SuSE will have a case.
"Well, your honor, as you can
Re:Even without the book, (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL, but three quick thoughts.
First, registering a trademark is not cheap. I could be way off, but I think I remember it used to cost five or six thousand dollars per year per trademark per category (but this figure may include lawyer fees, I don't remember).
Secon
Re:Even without the book, (Score:2)
This implies to me that using a kernel derived from Linux, but outside of Linus' control, in your product would disallow yo
Re:Even without the book, (Score:2)
Re:Even without the book, (Score:2, Interesting)
The name 'Linux' is now a (US) registered (by Linus) Trade Mark.
Re:Even without the book, (Score:2)
Re:Even without the book, (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2, Insightful)
Reading a law-talking book can be enough for some things, like getting out of a parking ticket or releasing a very simple piece of software. But it's not a substitute for having your own lawyer.
Just because something's properly GPL'd doesn't mean it's sue-proof, and there's a lot more to litigation than just the substantive law at issue.
Re:How Many Times... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it will help protect you by helping you become more sue-proof for licensing reasons than you would be by not reading the book. Of course it may not be as effective in a theoretical loss-of-life situation (in a country where someone can successfully sue for spilling hot coffee on their own lap, anything can happen). But in those types of situations, your choice of license is moot; the actual product is being held responsible for
You're right, though, nothing is a substitute for a good lawyer for some things.
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2)
It is rather ironic that you make a case of being informed and properly prepared when you repeat the common misconception of that coffee case [lectlaw.com].
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2)
Blah blah blah I read that story at least on three different occasions.
The laywers may say it's a good case, but I always say "Don't hold hot coffee in your lap." I myself spilled scalding coffee on my lap. I did not sue, but I think I learned a valuable lesson in life that I carry with me to this very day.
This very day, I tell you!
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2)
Heh, I completely agree, regardless of if the coffee was too hot, it is still simply stupid and asking for problems to hold a drink on your lap of which you simply know it is at least very warm (if not hot). A reason why even people who are aware of the case still poin
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2)
So the coffee you split on your lap caused 3rd degree burns, hospitalized you, and required skin grafts? That coffee was at 180?F - 190?F. That temperature causes 3rd degree burns in just a couple seconds (and was considered by a manager "unfit for human consumption").
Re:How Many Times... (Score:5, Insightful)
<paraphrase>But I'm more than a little frustrated that a book like $foo For Dummies is necessary. It speaks volumes about the current state of computing. The reason computers are complex is that big corporations who have no interest in their users' needs and programmers are too lazy and inconsiderate to create simple, flexible interfaces that Aunt Tillie can pick up in five seconds flat.</paraphrase>
Seriously, exactly how does the fact that non-lawyers need a book on the application of the law to open source issues lead to the conclusion that the law is unnecessarily complex? By the same reasoning, physics is unnecessarily complex because you need an engineering degree to get a good understanding of how Newton's laws govern the behaviour of real-world systems.
Law is like mathematics: you have a set of basic principles that are fairly simple on their own, but which need to be developed into quite complex structures in order to be useful in a large number of situations. In this example, the basic principle is: the person who creates the code has the right to say how it's used. The complexity comes simply from the fact that lots of people are involved and the law gives them all a say in how their work should be used.
Simplicity is a fine thing, but over-simplification should be considered harmful.
Re:How Many Times... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How Many Times... (Score:4, Interesting)
You could also make the claim that an operating system or programming language is arbitrarily complex. This is true, but in most cases those systems have been adapted to try and provide the best and simplest possible solutions for their respective problem domains. So it is also with law: the conficts created in modern human communities are complicated, and the law that governs those communities and tries to resolve those conflicts is also complicated.
Your claim that physics is defined by observable natural phenomenon is also only partially true. Physics is also defined by the models used to analyze and predict the behaviour of physical systems. The model has been improved over the years, e.g. with the invention of calculus or topology or other novel mathematical techniques, sometimes making physics simpler than previously thought possible.
The statement that there is no known way to make physics simpler could therefore apply equally well to law, and leads on to my own view on the matter: finding new and better ways to solve problems with formal or semi-formal systems is hard, and maybe impossible in some cases. The parent poster's assertion that law is overly complicated due to malice, incompetence, or recklessness is unjustified on the basis of the evidence he provided to support it.
Your assertion that law could be simpler is just that, an assertion, and you haven't bothered to support it with fact or logic. In respect of some areas of law I agree with it, in others I don't. Convince me.
Re:How Many Times... (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of judicial system allows laws and documentation that require advanced degrees to even understand? If ignorance of the law is no excuse, shouldn't law have to be written in understandable language.
So is mathematics ... (Score:2)
Mathematics is a pure science as we define "1 + 1 = 2" and say it is so. Modern physics is reaching the limits of naturally observable phenomena and are resorting to backward calculations from theories to prove things . (ok, prove "E=MC2" ... the theory came before nuclear bombs and fission). Right now - Physics is Mathematics , but one
Re:So is mathematics ... (Score:2, Insightful)
That is absolutely not what "science" means. Anything scientific must have basis in observations of something pre-existing. If it's all just constructs of your definitions, then it isn't science at all... but math.
Physics is Mathematics
No. Physics is a subset of science. But neither math nor science is a subset of the other.
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2, Interesting)
The key point here, especially from a business point of view, is regula
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2)
Law is man made and is arbitrarily complex. It could be simple, but for some reason, even though it is defined by man, it isn't.
There is often a good reason why things are more complex that it intuitively seems they need to be.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat - and wrong" - HL Mencken
Now, not to say all laws are as simple as they could be, and there is no uneccessary complexity. However, law is not complex for some arbitary reason, but becuase people and their int
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2)
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2)
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2)
Re:How Many Times... (Score:4, Interesting)
About a month or two ago I got an interesting email. One particular project wanted to incorporate some of my code into theirs. My code was under the BSD license and theirs under the GPL. No problem, right? Not to them! Their email was to beg me to release my software under the GPL so that they could use it. Needless to say that a short paragraph and a few good links on GPL "compatibility" cleared up the confusion. But this has not been the first time I've received an email like this.
A need for this kind of book exists.
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2)
Could be common curtesy. Could be misunderstandings. Not really redundant. Much easier to have everybody's concerns satisfied early that later.
Using your good name to promote my garbage has to be a no-no. The precise phrasing required depends on the times, the culture, the context and probably gives rise to a multitude of inscrutable licenses trying to fi
Re:How Many Times... (Score:4, Insightful)
At the very least, it'll make the dev happy that someone out there thinks his code is worth copying.
PS. I think the reason that BSD types get upset over free software relicensing (rather than proprietary relicensing) is because they are "competing" as it were in the free software sphere. When someone takes BSD code proprietary, they're taking it out of the pool. The BSD dev doesn't know what happens to it after that and so it's hard to worry about it. Contrast this to a GPLification, where the GPL'd version might (for one reason or another) get more mindshare than the BSD version and eclipse the original, with valuable bugfixes and improvements in plain sight of the original dev and yet completely out of reach for legal reasons. That having been said, when I use BSD code, any changes I make to that code (in the form of bugfixes or whatever) I'll be happy to provide under the BSD to devs that would like them. But unfortunately many GPL-types aren't so nice.
Re:How Many Times... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, and to correct a point. You may not "relicense" any BSD licensed software. The terms of the license do not permit it. You may not "file off" the BSD texts and replace them with the GPL. However, you may redistribute it under the terms of the GPL. So in actual practice it doesn't make that much difference.
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2)
No, but from what I have understood a derivative work of a BSD work can be dual licenced under BSD/GPL. In practice, that means the GPL. And since you can trivially create a "derivate" (look mom, I ad
Re:How Many Times... (Score:4, Insightful)
A common misconception. You must make a significant change to the original before it is a derivative work. You must ADD value to it. This cannot be done trivially. Adding whitespace is insufficient. On the other hand, merely compiling the source into a binary probably is sufficient, as it counts as translation.
In any case, if all you've done is add whitespace, then all I need to do is remove that whitespace and file off your GPL, because ONLY that whitespace is under the dual license. Everything else is still under the BSD license because everything else is still original.
Re:How Many Times... (Score:4, Insightful)
They have every right to be upset. The BSD license, like most software licenses, does not allow for relicensing. You must ask the legal owner of the copyright(s) on the software if you can change the terms under which it is distributed.
They aren't taking it out of the pool. The original, unmodified code is still in the pool for anybody to use as they see fit. Rather than taking something out of the pool, these people are merely failing to put more water into the pool.
That is certainly the right of anybody making changes to a BSD license code base. They have every right to ADD the GPL restrictions to their works (but the original BSD license must remain). It is somewhat rude, and ill mannered, however, to make such a change. The folks that wrote the BSD license code wanted to offer maximum flexibility to the licensee. This even includes the flexibiltiy to contaminate with GPL'd code. These contamination can cause a lot of problems because it can sometimes be hard to know that patches posted somewhere to BSD licensed code contain these GPL contaminations. This is a bad thing about both licenses, btw.
Again to reiterate: only the copyright holder can change the license on his/her copyrighted works. In general, derived works can only have additional licenses added (all of which must be obeyed).
Re:How Many Times... (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't need a convoluted contract.
You don't need convoluted laws.
You don't need confusing caselaw.
You don't need a confusing license.
The SCO shenanigans have gone on long enough simply because that's how long civil cases take to sort themselves out. This gives SCO plenty of time to shoot it's mouth off.
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2)
When I write code I test it. I throw random and unexpected input at my code to see if it breaks and if it does I fix it.
The americal legal system is also code isn't it? What would happen if you throw 1000 perfectly innocent people into the legal system? How many of them would come out of it? How many would go broke in the process? How many would lose t
Re:How Many Times... (Score:2)
Bash corporations as much as you want they usually deserve it, but this isn't one of those times.
Too bad the book isn't online (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you take your Free Software licensing quiz [gnu.org] today?
Re:Too bad the book isn't online (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Too bad the book isn't online (Score:2)
How greedy!
Knowing your limits (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that in the not-too-distant future, this kind of legal knowledge will be a bit of a prerequisite. This is especially true as awareness of the value of open source continues to spread, and more and more companies and people turn to open source as a cost effective tool. Check out "No More Stock" at this page: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/se
Knowing the legal limits *as a court would interpret them* will be crucial for open source developers world wide.
I dont know which is worse (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that law is all hard and stuff (why else would we keep using IANAL?) but I would watch out for any hacker turned laywer...
Aren't most hackers just people that are awesome at looking at a system and finding its weaknesses? So what is keeping him from finding a way to do anything he wants. Maybe nothing...
Normally I think we should be wary of lawyers and of hackers, but a hacker turned lawyer... WATCH OUT!
of course, I could just be using a outdated, preconcieved notion to judge someone that is doing good for us all
Like tests? Get paid to take them... [itpaystolearn.com]
Linux changes. (Score:4, Informative)
If the engineers take advantage of the openness of Linux and make some tweaks to the part that is officially Linux, the company must to distribute their changes too.
Actually thats not true. You don't have to distribute code if you aren't distributing the kernel. (or program, or whatever). Does the person who has patches his sources, for example when testing for the linux kernel for the developers, have to publish his
Re:Linux changes. (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to me a manufacturer might be distributing the product they manufacture.
Re:Linux changes. (Score:2)
...meaning, for GPL-style licences, that if they get a request for the source from those who they distribute to...they have to fork the changes over to that group or person. If not, they don't have to; not just anyone can demand the source -- the recipients have to.
Theoretically, if the same device is leased they would not have to distribute the source also...though I'd like to hear a counter argument. (OK...one that isn't
Re: Linux changes. (Score:2)
In my book, "distribution" means: passing copies around. In that context, what's the difference between selling or leasing a device?
You are correct about "distribute". Techincally, if you pass out something to several people, you have distributed it, regardless of whether you were conferring ownership to them, or if you expect them to give the stuff back next week.
However, in certain specific legal situations (such as exe
No, it is perfectly correct. (Score:2)
They should remove that FAQ, because if it were actually true, the GPL would have a loophole so large as to be essentially PD.
The reason there is a FAQ is that people don't understand the concept of a juridical entity. All copies belong to the company, so there is no transfer of rights from the company to their employees. All employees recieve an
Another loophole (Score:2)
GPL section 3 enumerates three ways to comply with the requirement that recipients of the program are able to get it's source code: either you include the source code, or you include an offer for the source code.
The trick a manufacturer can use is request his programmers NOT to include an offer for the source when they compile. Instead, attach the full source code to each executable
Re:Another loophole (Score:2)
Re: Linux changes. (Score:2)
If it's "GPL-style", it's not the GPL, and exact license terms may be different.
Substitute "GPL or GPL-compatable" then; these do exist.
As for the section 2b "all third parties" part, I've already addressed this in the past. I sum: The GPL grants a licence to distribute to the recipient. The licence is a contract that is not granted to everyone in the world, it is granted to the recipient ; just by writing something I can't force the whole world to abide
Re:Linux changes. (Score:2)
If a company wants a competitive advantage in the software, patching a bug and adding a feature in a linux will not do. They will have to give those back to the community, which is fine by me.
The big picture (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the courts, congress, bush, and big business are on the controlling side, and those of us that are creative and support GPL (and possibly other nearly fully free licenses) are mainly on the other side, the forces at work are not really in balance. The current SCO vs IBM case is truly indicative of that. There will be many battles, but ultimately, the forces of freedom will have to prevail.
Why, you ask? Because, if the rights to be creative are taken away, then there is no reason for the species known as homo sapiens to exist.
Re:The big picture (Score:2)
As SCO is a two bit company consisting 100% of lawyers and IBM is a huge big business consisting of thousands of "creative people" it would appear that the balance is exactly the opposite of what you are trying to make it out to be.
Re:The big picture (Score:2)
Re:The big picture (Score:2)
Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to be a die-hard socialist to do things for the good of the group.
> They all took philosophy classes, decided to become utilitarians, and are having gentlemanly wrestling contests to determine who should have offspring. They subjugate their will for the good of the pack, not for the benefit of the alpha male. Nosirree.
If it wouldn't work in the advantage of the group, it would have died out a logn time
interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Tho, i do disagree 100% with the idea that developers do not need to be concerned with the legal side of this argument (from above posts), more and more do we find ourselves as developers in the spotlight when something is not 100% up to snuff. More knowledge isnt really a bad thing.
Re:interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
I never understood why it was hard. The terms are easy.
If you modify or statically use this code that someone else wrote, and distribute it in a compiled form, then you have to distribute the changes that you made and the code that statically uses it in source form under the GPL. If you don't like those terms, then you don't have license to redistribute it in compiled form. The person who originally wrote it only gives you license to use it in this manner.
Tho, i do disagree 100% with the idea that developers do not need to be concerned with the legal side of this argument
I definitely think that they have to know about it. The last project that I worked on heavily used open source components. Most were Apache and BSD style licences. But there was one LGPL that we had to be careful of.
If you're a developer and you are writing some tiered app... why write your own connection pool, logger, encryption layer, application server, XML parser, etc, when you could just plug in someone else's open source stuff. You need to be aware that open source components do exist, and that you need to examine their licenses and be able to understand them.
If you are just some monkey programmer, then you don't need to be aware of these things. A real developer will make the decisions for you.
Watch the "L" in "LGPL" (Score:3, Funny)
An interesting license provision - but that's not a translation of the GPL. Specifically, the idea that yo
Another view on OS/GPL (Score:4, Interesting)
From http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,390246
"solicitor, Nick Abrahams today revealed he was in pre-court negotiations to defend a legal case in which a large IT company was attempting to use provisions of the open source General Public License to force his client to reveal its proprietary code."
I've submitted this as news (twice) yet it doesn't appear to be getting posted.......
Re:Another view on OS/GPL (Score:2)
Re:Another view on OS/GPL (Score:2)
Re:Another view on OS/GPL (Score:2)
I don't see this as a challenge to the GPL, though. It sounds like a normal contract dispute.
The claim made here...
I'm confused (Score:5, Funny)
These words don't make any sense together.
"Intellectual Property" does not exist! (Score:5, Informative)
As soon as you use that phrase, you are assuming a specific interpretation of the 3 legal constructs. Those of us who reject that particular interpretation are automatically locked out of the discussion, which I suspect is the purpose of the phrase.
What Copyright, Patents, and Trademarks do is impose a 'temporary monopoly' onto something intellectual that otherwise would not have limits. The nature of the monopoly may be different (Is it for an exact 'copyable' work of art such as an audio/visual work, or writing....is is a process where the words/diagrams used to describe the process are not critical, but the process is ... or is it part of a virtual identity), and
the time limits may be different, but the phrase "temporary monopoly" is
the essence of these legal structures.
If we can't start from that basis, then there is no way to have the discussion without quickly breaking down. The metaphor of property just does not make sense outside of physical objects as ideas are infinitely copyable, and can be spontaneously created ("thought of") in different places and time in isolation from each other. With physical objects there is a natural monopoly: the land, animal, person, object or whatever physical object can only exist in one place at any given time, and in the world outside of science fiction and magic do not just "appear out of thin air".
Creating an arbitrary legal limit on how something can be copied is clearly government intervention in the natural world to create a monopoly. Who benefits from that monopoly, and what the costs are, and how these things have changed over time can be brought up to interpretation and debate, but the basic concept behind the government granted temporary monopoly cannot be debated.
Re:"Intellectual Property" does not exist! (Score:2)
Now, it *is* the case that holding the legal conch on a patent gives you the right under certain circumstances in a particular country to charge someone for making something in a certain way, but I still refute the idea that that amounts to "property". However, the accountants assign some notional capital value to the money they can charge
Re:"Intellectual Property" does not exist! (Score:2)
But it does mean that calling a car an "electronic horse" may well lead people to incorrect assumptions and conclusions about the nature of cars, and might cause them to forget that cars are not birthed from other cars but are rather assembled by (machines assembled by ...) humans. One can imagine a legislature outlawing two-car garages so as to cut down on the number of cars in a city - wh
If it's legal if copyrighted, it's legal under GPL (Score:4, Informative)
GPL is a set of exceptions to standard copyright law. It says "if you do this, you can violate the copyright on this code".
It is amazing how few PHB's understand this. If you put a piece of code in that says "Copyright me, all rights reserved" they have not problem, and say "we'll replace that or ask for permission before we distribute". But put some GPL code in, or even link to an LGPL library, and they get all nervous and scared that somehow they will lose the entire company! That is just incredibly stupid, it is in fact safer than plain copyright, by definition!
Dynamically linking OK? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm, according to my reading of the GPL FAQ, even dynamically linking creates a derivative work, and thus all of the code would need to be under the GPL [gnu.org]. No?
"Derivative" is a legal term, not a technical term (Score:2, Interesting)
Derivative work is a legal term, not a technical one. Dynamically linking doesn't protect you from copyright infringement if static linking would be considered copyright infringement.
The best-known case about this is Light House Ministries vs. Intellectual Reserve, Inc. In that case, Intellectual Reserve held the copyright to some work that Light House Ministries posted online
Re:Dynamically linking OK? (Score:2)
It seems to me to be a weak case to say that distributing something that dynamically links something GPL becomes an aggregate work.
They claim you have to use GPled include files so you infect you work with GPL..
Re:Dynamically linking OK? (Score:3, Interesting)
Take Doom3. The only version released (so far) doesn't run without DirectX 9. So is it clearly a derivative work? Does Microsoft(tm) actually own copyright on Doom?
AC: If there is a different library available (like Mesa vs SGI OpenGL
That's senseless. By that theory, I could retro-actively change a program from derived to independent if I re-implement a library previously available from a sole source. (Which woul
laugh of the day (Score:5, Insightful)
When I read this, I laughed so hard I nearly fell out of my chair. Just consider, if you will, how many completely misguided and contradictory views of the GPL you've seen/heard recently, even right here on
Most open source users have no friggin' clue what the exact rights and restrictions are under the GPL or other popular OSI-listed licences (the BSD/MIT variants being a possible exception, since they contain almost no restrictions to begin with). That doesn't keep them from having an opinion and loudly expressing it, of course...
Re:laugh of the day (Score:2)
Rosen is clueless (Score:4, Insightful)
The book violates the GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
best friend (Score:2)
>running on top of a >GPL-protected version of Linux.
>If you stay on the right side of the lines, you're still Richard Stallman's best friend.
I don't think so, as Stallman feels proprietary software is 'immoral'.
Distributing a collection containing GPL'd works (Score:2, Interesting)
However, if this same program is distributed in a collection containing the GPL'd program, then there is a problem: the GPL does not give permission to distribute the collection, since it is not a mere aggregation and contains a non-GPL'd program and a GPL'd program.
been there yesterday: GPL author violated BSD (c) (Score:5, Interesting)
Read the full story at my web page, http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html [feyrer.de].
- Hubert
Re:Funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Funny... (Score:2)
Licensing/copyright/ip however is quite simple and you don't really have to think about stuff like this twice: If you are somehow using other peoples code, you have to respect their license. In the case of GPL, linking dynamically instead of statically is not something hard, and anyway it's just a technicallity, not a programming issue.
Other than that, as long as you keep in your mind that you
Re:Funny... (Score:5, Interesting)
When a peice of code, lets say, libfoo, is under the GPL, that means the structures in memory that libfoo defines, the method signatures, etc, are all peices of libfoo. They are copyrighted works released under the GPL.
Now, lets say you want to write a peice of software to USE libfoo. To write this software, it's required to import some of libfoo's headers. These headers are copyrighted. When you compile your software, even though it links dynamically at runtime, it still retains this copyrighted memory structure information in the final binary image. You're compiled program has just included GPLd code. In fact, if you simply call methods, you're program could arguably be including copyrighted material.
This is a major peice of contention... and I would say this IS how the GPL works, even though most people ignore it. WHy would I say that? Because of the LGPL, which was designed SPECIFICALLY to address the issue by putting in writing that it was OKAY to use LGPL libraries in a non-LGPLed program. Because the FSF found the need to create the LGPL, one can only assume that that GPL really does work th is way. Somebody suing you for using their GPL'd code would most likely bring this up in court, and they'd likely win.
According to a strict interpretation of hte GPL, this is the way it is. It disturbs me greatly that some people have never read the thing, or are willing to ASSUME anything in the face of copyright. That's bogus to me. Don't rewrite the GPL to suit how you wish it was, interpret it as it is and go from there, otherwise you are opening yourself up a can of worms.
Re:Funny... (Score:3, Interesting)
>to USE libfoo.
yes, as i said, in that case you have to respect the license, and keep in mind that it is not your code.
As for the gpl/lgpl thing, i was just answering to the article:
" he carefully made sure the proprietary code in his system would only be dynamically linked to the GPL-protected code. "
>this IS how the GPL works, even though most people ignore it.
an old problem indeed, except for QT i can't think of a library that uses gpl, and
Re:Funny... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Funny... (Score:2)
The libraries which come with GCC are AFAIK indeed all GPL+exception. I don't know the license of glibc.
Re:Funny... (Score:2)
Re:Funny... (Score:2)
Just wondering, isn't this exactly what is the case with some binary only apps on Linux?
I did hear quite a few objections against such binary only apps, but not that they were illegal from a licensing point of view.
Re:Funny... (Score:2)
Of course if a proprietary program would e.g. link to readline on the basis that it comes with the Linux distriubution, then it would be another story.
Also,
Re:Funny... (Score:3, Informative)
" he carefully made sure the proprietary code in his system would only be dynamically linked to the GPL-protected code."
According to the GPL FAQ [gnu.org] even dynamically linking proprietary code with GPL code is not allowed. See in particular GPL and plugins [gnu.org], Mere Aggregation [gnu.org], and Windows Runtime and GPL [gnu.org].
Re: Non-existant GPL libraries, indeed. (Score:2)
in the first page there are:
2 gpl'ed library automation programms
9 lgpl'ed libraries
6 programms/libraries under non-gpl licenses (BSD, mozilla etc.)
1 unmaintained gpl'ed python library
libstdc++ and
4 gpl'ed librariers i've never heard before.
You have a point though, if those four libraries aren't licensed under GPL for a purpose, their maintainers should be contacted.
Re:Funny... (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, GPL on a library indicates that the authors of the library don't want commercial developers to use it. While they probably have no legal right to demand it, they can still cost you a lot in court costs if they decide to sue, and more importantly, can still hurt your corporate image publicly
Re:Funny... (Score:3, Insightful)
BSD is an open source license. You can't legally link to a GPL library from a BSD application. That's not an economic problem. That's being a fascist. That's why there has been tons of wasted effort put into thin
Re:Funny... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Funny... (Score:2)
Re:The movement (Score:3, Funny)
Re:NOT a first post. (Yeah, suck it!) (Score:3, Interesting)
Under GPL, if you distribute your code outside your own use (ie, internal use), your cont
Re:NOT a first post. (Yeah, suck it!) (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to read this then. (Score:2)
http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GL15a.pdf
Basicall y, there is no solid legal way to do what you are trying to do.
Re:NOT a first post. (Yeah, suck it!) (Score:2)
Sounds like a good career move to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, with IT jobs cut or outsourced to India, and legal battles about 'intellectual property' (damn, that phrase annoys me more and more) on the rise, that sounds like a solid career move. If you're in it for the money, that is.
Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere.
Re:Sounds like a good career move to me (Score:2)