| |||||||||||
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legalSounds like co-distribution is perfectly legalPosted Nov 10, 2005 15:39 UTC (Thu) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659)In reply to: This is NOT about interfaces! by khim Parent article: Debian and Nexenta collide Now back to Nexenta, CDDL and GPL. As we've seen from sample above it does not matter of libraries are using the same interface - if they are published as single product (and Nexenta presumably wants to do exactly this) then licenses must be compatible. In fact this was reason for GPLv2 ! Note this part of it: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. Why such exception was ever needed ? Easy: without this exception SUSE (with GPLed bash and proprietary Macromedia Flash) will be illegal! GPLv1 had no such provisions and this was a problem GPLv2 solved. May be GPLv3 will solve this problem, may be not - but right now Nexenta is in quite real trouble. But aren't you disproving your own point here? Since the GPL expressly allows distributing non-GPL software in the same product, it would seem to allow distribution of GPL software with CDDL libc. Furthermore, Sun and other proprietary unices have been distributing GPL gcc with proprietary libc implementations for literally decades without infringing, or at least without infringement suits. Why the sudden storm in a teacup over distribution with free software? (Incidentally, this is not the same as the old KDE/Qt flap, which was about distributing GPL apps linked against non-free non-system libraries with non-standard interfaces, and nearly sank the original Corel Linux distribution -- or at least its apt/KDE software installation tool.) As a Debian developer myself, I have to agree with paulj that the complaint of these DDs is a counterproductive restriction on free software, let alone childish infighting between free software camps which will more than likely damage the reputation of the Debian project and the community as a whole. To one day say, "SCO is wrong, interfaces are not copyrightable", and the next day turn around and say, "You'd better not link my free software to your free system software with a standard interface!" is truly pathetic.
(Log in to post comments)
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal Posted Nov 10, 2005 16:53 UTC (Thu) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link] You've missed the distinction between "mere aggregation" and "derived work". The claim is that when you distribute (say) dpkg with the Solaris libc, you are distributing a derived work combining the dpkg code and the libc code, because (this particular binary) of dpkg will not work without (this particular binary) libc. Remember API!=ABI, and by including the header files provided by the Solaris libc, you're including Solaris libc specific code.
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal Posted Nov 10, 2005 17:12 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] But aren't you disproving your own point here? Since the GPL expressly allows distributing non-GPL software in the same product, it would seem to allow distribution of GPL software with CDDL libc. Not really. GPL allows "mere aggregation" of two programs on the same medium regardless of their license if they are not related (relevant part os quoted in previous post). Furthermore, Sun and other proprietary unices have been distributing GPL gcc with proprietary libc implementations for literally decades without infringing, or at least without infringement suits. Why the sudden storm in a teacup over distribution with free software? This is other question. Why FSF never sued Apple and/or Sun ? May be they had no money or they were not sure it's a good idea. Who knows. Copyright owner is not forced to sue anyone who violates copyright (that's not trademark). I agree that all this problem is quite silly and looks like storm in a teacup but this does not make it less real.
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal Posted Nov 10, 2005 20:54 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]
Oh, come on now. Before there even was Linux (and thus the possibility to even build a fully GPL-compatible system), all GPLed software had to run on propietary systems, simply because there was nothing else to be had. Before Linux, glibc was a sad joke, and everything used the propietary libraries that came with the OS. Standard joke was that the first task with a new Sun was
So now there is Linux. And glibc works. And what I did before to our Suns will not be tolerated anymore, just because?! I just can't see the difference between shipping
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal Posted Nov 11, 2005 4:46 UTC (Fri) by kimoto (subscriber, #5244) [Link] One rationale from Thomas Bushnell for why the funny wording is in the GPL2 (which was designed in the age of proprietary systems):The special exception allows you to ship, for example, emacs binaries linked against the proprietary HPUX libraries, provided HP distributes those libraries along with the major components of HPUX (that is, they cannot have unbundled them), and provided you are not shipping those libraries yourself. This is specifically designed to prevent HP from including an emacs binary which is linked against their libraries, shipping the whole thing as part of HPUX, and not providing the source for their libraries.
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal Posted Nov 11, 2005 11:09 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Oh, come on now. Before there even was Linux (and thus the possibility to even build a fully GPL-compatible system), all GPLed software had to run on propietary systems, simply because there was nothing else to be had. Yes, but was GPLed software included with proprietary systems ? I know of one sample from that era: NEXTStep (later Mac OS X). All others shipped without any GPL components. If end-user does install GPL software on OS - this is one story (there are special exception in GPL), but if vendor ship GPLed component as part of base system... this is different story.
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal Posted Nov 11, 2005 13:12 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] There sure were. DG-UX (Data General) used gcc as their stock compiler. The propietary (I believe source wasn't available) Pro toolset from Cygnus was built around gcc, gdb, binutils, etc. Not just some "shipping with" there, without those tools the rest made no sense at all. Besides, this is more than a bit strange, all around: DEC provided a tape with "extraofficial software" with their systems, Sun later shipped a CD with such stuff. I'm sure other Unix vendors did likewise. There are vendor sites giving GPLed stuff compiled and packed for their systems (including whatever parts of the libraries and such this requires). And now, when the same thing is being done with an OS shipped in source form, under a somewhat free license (much freer that original Solaris or Ultrix, in any case),it is bad?
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal Posted Nov 13, 2005 20:28 UTC (Sun) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] The same thing with NextStep. GCC was the system compiler. They modified it to support ObjectiveC, and were forced to release the source code to the ObjectiveC front end, but not for the whole operating system.
|
|||||||||||