| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Yes it's the caseYes it's the casePosted Dec 12, 2008 1:24 UTC (Fri) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048)In reply to: Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations by dlang Parent article: Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations
If I offer you software under a license that states "This license is only valid so long as no software you distribute contains the word 'bob'" and you package up my software with yours, and your software contains the word 'bob' then you are distributing the software I wrote without a license. The manner in which your and my software is or isn't combined isn't relevant, you still are obligated to conform to the license of my software or not distribute it.
So there really is no reason to doubt that the GPL can define the linking boundary however it likes. GPLv3 switched away from loaded terminology like 'derivative' specifically to avoid encouraging this class of confusion among laymen.
(Log in to post comments)
Yes it's the case Posted Dec 12, 2008 1:40 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
there are limits to what is considered reasonable for such licenses, and I don't believe that your example would be considered valid.
Yes it's the case Posted Dec 12, 2008 6:55 UTC (Fri) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link]
If the license is not valid, what license would you have to distribute the code?
Sometimes court can declare PART of the license "null and void" Posted Dec 12, 2008 17:04 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] For example if your license demands that you'll chop your hand before you'll start using the program court will usually say it's "unreasonable demand" and THIS PART of the license will be declared null and void (but the license as whole will still be valid). But in reality this rarely happen: usually some part of the license can be voided only when license contains requirements which are specifically forbidden by some law.
in which case you still don't have a license Posted Dec 14, 2008 1:04 UTC (Sun) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]
Even if the GPL said you can only distribute this software if you do something illegal, you still wouldn't be able to distribute the software:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. (§7, GPLv2)
in which case you still don't have a license Posted Dec 16, 2008 6:54 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
Is that legal advice? You are a lawyer?
rhetorical questions Posted Jan 9, 2009 0:50 UTC (Fri) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]
Sorry I forgot to add "IANAL" until after I'd already posted that comment (LWN doesn't have a comment edit facility).
I'm not sure what k8to means by the question "is that legal advice", but I believe the answer is fairly obvious for most meanings even without the IANAL disclaimer. I think points can be made more clearly without rhetorical questions such as the above; it actually comes across a bit sarcastic, which is not conducive to helpful discussion.
But that's not the point Posted Dec 13, 2008 13:37 UTC (Sat) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] The "or not distribute it" choice is the one available here. A program that, when run, links against a shared library that is already present on the user's system does not have to be distributed with that shared library. But the FSF claims that it is still covered by that library's license. That's exactly the point of dispute.This tends not to matter for Linux distributions because they need to provide the library anyway, but it matters for independent software vendors.
|
|
||||||||||||