Oh $DEITY [LWN.net]

Oh $DEITY

Posted Feb 16, 2006 10:15 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
In reply to: GPL and linking by proski
Parent article: On the dual-license model

There is no "GPL linking clause".

I defy anyone to find anywhere in the license text of the GPL that
mentions "linking". Even the "incorporating" in the non-normative last
paragraphs is absolutely incorrect. I have explained, than complained,
then ranted, and now when I look at myself talking about this, I *know* I
look like a drooling madman.

I'll try to calm down and explain (again):

1. The FSF GPL FAQ is the only semi-authoritative place where it's said
that you can't link, either statically or dynamically, your
GPL-incompatible-licensed program with a GPL'd library.

2. The argument used to uphold the forementioned FAQ opinion is weak. The
problem is that the GPLv2 has an error in its content, in the following
segment of clause #0:

""" The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work
based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work
under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a
portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated
into another
language. """

Let's analyze it.
a "work based on the program"
is "the program or a derivative work under copyright law";
that is to say (== explaining) "a work containing the program or a portion
of it (...)"
==> which is blatantly false!!! This is not the definition of "a
derivative work under copyright law".

3. As the GPL states in its clause #0, next paragraph:

""" Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted (...) """

It is, at the very least, least implicitly allowing the distribution of a
GPL-incompatible-licensed program that links DYNAMICALLY with a
separately-distributed GPL'd library: because the GPL will not restrict
"the act of running the program" (where the "program" is in fact the
library).

4. IOW#1: The GPL has a serious error in its formulation on clause #0 and
one of the stuff they should do is correct it for the v3.

5. IOW#2: For all practical LEGAL terms, license a library under the GPL
is very similar to license it under the LGPL (Derivative works of the
library must still have their source distributed -- to whomever one
distributes as binary -- etc., ie, must be GPL'd also, but a "using
program" does not /per/ /se/ has this requirement)

(Log in to post comments)

Oh $DEITY

Posted Feb 16, 2006 10:52 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

Are we free to understand this article is authoritative legal advice?

Or, less snarkily, why do you believe you can give an authoritative legal opinion on the license text when others who are legal experts are not in agreement with you?

It is easy to accept that the matter is not made entirely clear by the license text. It is very difficult to accept your conclusion.

As authoritative as possible, considering:

Posted Feb 16, 2006 11:33 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

IANAL, but I have worked for two years as a paralegal in a DA's office, I
have legal training, and I researched Brasilian copyright law (and 17USC)
for use in criminal prosecution of copyright infringers.

The only _real_ authoritative answer will come from a superior court in
your jurisdiction. Maybe I should have disclaimed all that -- for the
100th time? Ok. Now it's done.

Oh $DEITY

Posted Feb 16, 2006 19:13 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

He's basically rigth, even though he words it provocatively.

The basic point is: No license has the power to define what "derivative work" mean in the context of copyrigth law.

Only a judge can do that. And if a judge says that X is not, according to copyrigth-law, a derivative of Y, then there is absolutely nothing the author of Y can do to affect X. The license for Y is simply irrelevant in this case.

Oh $DEITY

Posted Feb 23, 2006 13:17 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

Which is why the GPL v3 addresses this directly ...

v2 was not written by a lawyer. I don't know whether v3 was, but if it wasn't it had a lot of legal involvement in its drafting.

Cheers,
Wol