| |||||||||||||
No - you got it backwards!No - you got it backwards!Posted Oct 4, 2008 7:00 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: LGPL was never at risk by ikm Parent article: Plugging into GCC
If you distribute the library AND the program - you need permissions from authors of both library and program. Very clear-cut case. Nothing is murky here. That's where GPL and LGPL are playing. But. If you want to do what you are describing (distribute the program without library and/or make installer download the library from third-party web site)... be ready to pay lawers and/or the court: the story starts to get murky and minor details can decide an outcome (see the next comment from jordanb for real-world case). For example if program can use both libedit and readline or "go without" (in which case there will be no high-level editing capabilities in your program) court can conclude that it's not a derived work of readline, but if it's unusable without readline the outcome can be different. Law is squishy as PJ likes to repeat: court looks not only on the letter of the law but on the spirit too and they try to decipher intentions of both law and authors so the end result can be uncertain. That's why nVidia drivers are probably clear: the same binary can be used in Windows so they are not related to Linux in any way and glue code is completely free so can not infringe anything by definition.
(Log in to post comments)
No - you got it backwards! Posted Oct 4, 2008 9:03 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> If you distribute the library AND the program - you need permissions from authors of both library and program. Very clear-cut case. Nothing is murky here. That's where GPL and LGPL are playing.
Don't forget that the GPL specifically allows non-GPL-compatible programs to be shipped as part of a distribution.
From the GPLv2 license:
So, due to the language of the GPL, how programs are distributed are immaterial. (and, of course, the GPL only kicks in if the software is distributed) If the program is not considered legally 'derived work' then shipping it together or seperate doesn't matter. If it is considered 'derived work' then it doesn't matter either, it's still going to be covered under the GPL irregardless of how they are shipped.
:)
IANAL
Sorry, but no dice. Posted Oct 4, 2008 9:48 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Don't forget that the GPL specifically allows non-GPL-compatible programs to be shipped as part of a distribution. Not all non-GPL-compatible programs! Only totally unrelated ones! Your idea may be will work with linux kernel, but it does not work with GCC. You mixed the licenses. GPLv3 already addressed this loophole. It does not refer to derived works at all. What it does refer to is this: A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, 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, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an aggregate if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. Plugins are by their very nature are "extensions on the covered work" and so it does not matter if they are derived works or not - you can not distribute them with GCC. The discussion in question is centered on separate distribution since distribution as bundle is already forbidden. So, due to the language of the GPL, how programs are distributed are immaterial. Sorry, it does matter. Big way. If the program is not considered legally 'derived work' then shipping it together or seperate doesn't matter. Nope. If the program is extension (and plugin is an extension) and if it's distributed on the same medium as GCC - it must be distributed under terms of the GPL. Because the whole medium is 'derived work' and so must comply with GCC. You can put somthing totally unrelated on this medium (Flash player or Adobe Reader, for example), but you can not put the plugin there. If the plugin is distributed separately - then and only then the question about "derived work" arises...
Sorry, but no dice. Posted Oct 6, 2008 3:44 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] This "aggregation" clause of GPLv3 (as much of the verbosity of the licenses) is just (re)stating what the relevant laws (and even common sense) tells you. True, but irrelevant. If they stated the exact opposite, the legal effect would be precisely the same: The license just can't override the law.
Very much no so. Posted Oct 6, 2008 6:54 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The license just can't override the law. Oh so very true. But what the law says about redistribution? Right: you can't do that. Wait till the end of author, then 70 more years - and only then you can. Or you can ask author for the permission. And as judge said: "If a publisher wants to publish a book of an author that wants his book only to be published in a green envelope, then that might seem odd to you, but still you will have to do it as long as you want to publish the book and have no other agreement in place." Sorry, but aggregation clause is very much not the restatement of relevant laws (may it's restatement of common sense, but this is irrelevant here). GPL had this clause from the very first version because someone noted that without it such programs can not be included in program collections (like once popular SimTel) since it'll mean all programs in said collection must be distributed under GPL if just one program uses GPL. Thus "aggregation clause" was added to limit "viral reach" of GPL. GPLv3 just fixed small problem there and made proprietary plugins illegal again, that's all.
|
|||||||||||||