Rust's Redox OS could show Linux a few new tricks (InfoWorld)

Posted Apr 4, 2016 23:34 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
In reply to: Rust's Redox OS could show Linux a few new tricks (InfoWorld) by pizza
Parent article: Rust's Redox OS could show Linux a few new tricks (InfoWorld)

Yes, correct. However, please re-read the message I've been answering to.

Rust's Redox OS could show Linux a few new tricks (InfoWorld)

Posted Apr 5, 2016 1:44 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, do please re-read it.

It's only if you distribute BINARIES that you are forced to distribute your own code.

If I distribute GPL'd *SOURCE* code (any code, mine, yours, Jo Bloggs's), I am under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to distribute my source code. Obviously, from the first sentence of this paragraph I may have *chosen* to distribute my code but that is a *choice*, not a *requirement*.

Hence I don't understand why you quoted section *3* of the GPLv2, which is explicitly about distributing binaries, which is why I was explicit about the fact I was distributing source. If I don't provide a binary, section 3 doesn't apply - it's totally irrelevant.

In fact, if I want to mix proprietary and GPL'd source code, and distribute the resulting program, the simplest way to avoid the GPL (provided I have the necessary licence to the proprietary code) is to distribute the whole lot as a source-only build system. That way, it falls under the "mere aggregation" state, and it's left to the end user to build the derivative work, which is perfectly legit.

Cheers,
Wol

Rust's Redox OS could show Linux a few new tricks (InfoWorld)

Posted Apr 6, 2016 7:05 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

well, actually, that would depend on your patches really NOT being a derivative work on the GPL'd parts in the legal sense of "derivative works" (as per 17 USC 101, for example, if the jurisdiction in casu was the USofA: <<A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.>>)

In my jurisdiction, the definition of a derivative work is even more nuanced (if your work uses the "mis en scene" of preexisting one it can be construed as a derivative work.) OTOH, my jurisdiction has additional "fair use" protections applicable to software (it renders, among other things, the "no virtual machines" clauses of EULAs null and void).