| |||||||||||||
It is a problem that needs to be fixedIt is a problem that needs to be fixedPosted Feb 20, 2004 3:35 UTC (Fri) by josh_stern (guest, #4868)In reply to: It is a problem that needs to be fixed by JoeBuck Parent article: Stallman on XFree86 License Change (OfB.biz) From the GPL itself: >However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not >include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary >form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the >operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component >itself accompanies the executable.
>I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual >Basic) and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my >program with the Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) run-time library permitted >under the GPL? I always heard these statements explained as an example of a class of exceptions for system/platform components. xlib certainly qualifies as a system/platform component for an xlib application. Regarding the point about distributors, I can only see how it applies to xlib applications they themselves have written, since many Linux distributors have 'merely aggregated' non-free works written by others for a long time). None of the above should be construed as an endorsement of the XFree86 team's irresponsible decision to cause unnecessary headaches for their users, though I do think that the situation highlights some technical flaws in the GPL.
(Log in to post comments)
It is a problem that needs to be fixed Posted Feb 20, 2004 4:38 UTC (Fri) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link] That system library exception in the GPL doesn't really help you if you are distributing both the X libraries and GPL apps together, like all Linux distros do.
It is a problem that needs to be fixed Posted Feb 20, 2004 5:12 UTC (Fri) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] For the case where the application Y was written by somebody else, if you agree that it is okay for *someone* to distribute Y with GPL license, then you are arguing that the distro people would somehow lose this right if they also distributed library X that Y happens to link to (and they even provide all source code for X). That doesn't make legal sense and is also contrary to the spirit of the GPL.
It is a problem that needs to be fixed Posted Feb 20, 2004 17:12 UTC (Fri) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] That's exactly what that clause means. "You" is the licensee, not the original author of the software. This is why Debian can't distribute GPLd programs linked against OpenSSL, for example.
It is a problem that needs to be fixed Posted Feb 20, 2004 20:23 UTC (Fri) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] Debian is a collective that often adopts unusual interpretations of licenses in order to avoid internal squabbles. Also, I'm not clear about your example: is Debian saying they can't distribute those works because their previous distribution was a GPL violation,or because it would only become one were Debian to do the distribution, or because Debian want the freedom to create new modified works based on the GPL program. The differences are critical here. The first case is not a problem for xlib due to the system software exception, and I agree with the interpretation in the third case except that there are obvious ways to work around it in practice. But I claim that the second interpretation is an incorrect reading of the GPL itself. Consider:From the preamble: >To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid Someone supporting the second interpretation is arguing that the GPL is prohibiting the author and/or upstream distributors of a GPL licensed work from giving the same rights to a recipient (who happens to put together a Linux distro). Since the text above is actually part of the license and not simply a policy goal, your interpretation makes the GPL license self-contradictory.
It is a problem that needs to be fixed Posted Feb 21, 2004 19:35 UTC (Sat) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] > Since the text above is actually part of the license and not simply a policy goal...Actually, the GPL's preamble is not part of the licensing terms. The system software exception does not apply if you are the one distributing the GPLd component and the system software. Debian distributes the system software. Ergo, Debian cannot distribute the GPLd components without an exception to the GPL to allow the distributed binaries to link to the GPL-incompatible parts of the system (OpenSSL being the most prominent example). You can replace "Debian" above with "Red Hat", "Mandrake", or any other organization that is not the copyright holder of the GPLd components in question. Strangely, www.gnu.org seems to be down right now, so I can't point you to the GPL FAQ where they discuss license exceptions.
It is a problem that needs to be fixed Posted Feb 21, 2004 23:45 UTC (Sat) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] > > Since the text above is actually part of the license and not simply a> >policy goal... >Actually, the GPL's preamble is not part of the licensing terms The preamble is part of the license so it is appropriate to use strong >The system software exception does not apply if you are If I'm not the original author of the software and it has
It is a problem that needs to be fixed Posted Feb 21, 2004 3:20 UTC (Sat) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] From the GPL itself:However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. It is a weird feeling seeing this quote (obviously intended to cover closed source operating systems) applied to Linux distributions... and to X11, which is the open source (well, now sort of) windowing system on all closed source Unix systems which GNU set out to emulate.
|
|||||||||||||