| |||||||||||||
PostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPLPostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPLPosted Feb 17, 2011 15:56 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341)In reply to: PostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPL by dlang Parent article: PostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPL
It can't. In a similar fashion, working around dynamic linking with some technical trick can't "un-derive" one work from another either. In short, the technical arcania may not be massively relevant to the derivation question.
E.g. Google have put Bluez in Android behind a DBus IPC interface, because Bluez is GPL and they wish to insulate proprietary applications that build on Android's Bluetooth stack from the GPL. While it may technically succeed in isolating such apps from the bluez library /API/, legally it need *not* change the fact that codes X,Y,etc are dependent on code Y.
At least, that's the legal advice I'm aware of from the corporate counsel of a different, large technology counsel, in a very similar situation code/IPC wise.
(Log in to post comments)
PostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPL Posted Feb 28, 2011 9:29 UTC (Mon) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link]
In the Android case, wouldn't BlueZ be considered part of the system libraries, in which case it's a moot point whether apps using it indirectly through the DBus layer are considered derivatives or not?
PostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPL Posted Feb 28, 2011 9:52 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Perhaps. Maybe Google lawyers are being extra cautious. It doesn't really hurt them to do that.
PostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPL Posted Feb 28, 2011 11:33 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
The system library exception exists to allow GPL apps to link to proprietary apps. It does not apply in the opposite direction, i.e. it can not give proprietary apps permission to derive from a GPL work. IMU.
|
|||||||||||||