The documentation problem

Posted Feb 11, 2011 6:18 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
In reply to: The documentation problem by samroberts
Parent article: Remnant: The Proc Connector and Socket Filters

Just a quick note, it is possible to write code in a non-GPL license while using a GPL library as long as your code is GPL compatible.

The documentation problem

Posted Feb 13, 2011 3:29 UTC (Sun) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (4 responses)

If the binary links to the GPL library, it must be distributed under the GPL. And if the source cannot be used without the GPL library, it is practically GPL'd, even if theoretically it is under a different but compatible licence.

The documentation problem

Posted Feb 17, 2011 17:10 UTC (Thu) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link] (3 responses)

> If the binary links to the GPL library, it must be distributed under the GPL

AFAICT the parent poster was right. It doesn't have to be distributed under GPL, it just has to be distributed under any compatible license.

Using the recent example, PostgreSQL can use the GPL-ed libreadline because the PostgreSQL License is compatible with GPL. However, OpenSSL cannot be linked to libreadline, because the OpenSSL License is not compatible with GPL.

The documentation problem

Posted Feb 17, 2011 17:54 UTC (Thu) by samroberts (subscriber, #46749) [Link] (2 responses)

I'm not sure if there is just some pedantic point being made here, or I wasn't clear enough. Saying your code doesn't actually have to be GPLed, only distributed under the same terms as the GPL is a very fine distinction, indeed.

Using system calls to use the linux kernel's facilities (file systems, networking, etc.) does not make ANY requirements on your code to have ANY license of ANY type. You can write code to the system calls that is licensed as you wish.

Writing code to the kernel interfaces exposed through netlink can force you to either use GPL libraries (at least in the case of the netfilter project) or to implement the relevant protocol yourself.

If you use GPL libraries you have to distribute your code under the terms of the GPL.

Implementing the netlink-based protocols yourself would still be annoying if the protocols were sufficiently documented, and they clearly are not.

Generally, the netlink based facilities are powerful but slightly obscure, and used for pieces of system plumbing (like upstart) that are and should be GPLed, so this problem doesn't get noticed as much as it should.

Its my opinion that a strength of linux is that it allows code of any license to be written on it (I'm a huge proponent of the kernel itself being entirely GPL). I see a problem in some of the more interesting, powerful, and linux-specific facilities being exposed in a way that creates barriers for non-GPL-compatible code to use them.

The documentation problem

Posted Feb 25, 2011 6:44 UTC (Fri) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link] (1 responses)

May I coin this (if somebody has not already beaten me to it) as copycenter (copycentral? Copycentric?); the recognition that whilst freedom doesn't come from the enforced protections of the copyright, the enforced openness of the copyleft isn't true freedom either, although (IMO) much better for the greater society, the copyleft still relies on enforcement rather than personal responsibility. You can tell the copycentrics, they're the ones that can work with both of the others :-)

The documentation problem

Posted Feb 25, 2011 17:37 UTC (Fri) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link]

It isn't you that's free, it's the software :-)

While hunting down the source of a quote, I ran across this:

[...] As reformer the liberal is dissatisfied with things as they are because they violate his exceptionally tender conscience. Nor does the liberal confuse liberty with license — that is, with the liberty to destroy liberty. He seeks to change or interpret law to make room for greater freedom, but is so wedded to law that he insists on bringing even the lawmaker, whether civil or ecclesiastical, within its jurisdiction. Liberalism does not advocate change for its own sake, but for the sake of something better in the direction of what he regards as good, namely, the maximum of liberty consistent with a regard for all men and all interests [...]
—PERRY, Ralph Barton, Characteristically American, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949, p.117.

via Google Books, of course.