On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:01:53 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Of course there is a question about it. It doesn't depend on it to > exist. I can write something using the description of a library I've > never seen. No reasonable interpretation of copyright law says that > I can't copy this entirely original work anywhere I want. Whether > it runs or not in any or all of those places isn't particularly > relevant. The FSF interpretation says otherwise. If you think your interpretation of copyright law is better than the FSF's then nobody will have a problem in court. Thankfully the GPL is working as intended so far. > It's not simple at all. The program may run only when linked to > another person's own copy of the library in question. That's > the way copyright and every other license works. Note that there > is no restriction against writing and using your own copy of this > work, or hiring someone to write it specifically for you. The claim > is that this original work can't be distributed because it won't run > without the GPL'd part - as though running is some kind of requirement > for code distribution or that copyright is somehow dependent on code > working correctly... Yes, the GPL only applies if you make a derivative work, so what? If someone's lawyer tells them their work isn't a derivative they're free to ignore the GPL. No problems. > Then the FSF claim is even more obviously nonsense. But suppose you > don't have a copy of the library yourself when you write the original > part and don't know the terms of its license. Or you can't disprove > the existence of a similar, differently licensed library. It doesn't really matter much what the FSF says. Everything you need to know is in the GPL document itself and at your lawyers office. But none of that matters since so far the GPL is working just as intended. > The gmp library that raised the issue has since been changed to > LGPL, partly because of the bad publicity from the RIPEM dispute > but perhaps also because the FSF knows the claim doesn't have much > chance of surviving a challenge. But, the same issue applies to > code that allows dynamically loaded plugins under different licenses > to run in the same process. If any part is GPL'd, none of the > others can have any different restrictions. Time will tell if you're right or wrong about what might happen in a court of law. Until then we'll keep using the GPL. And presumably you'll continue to use and enjoy all that GPL software too. Sean -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
