[ale] OT: GPL Question

Mike Panetta ahuitzot at mindspring.com
Tue Sep 3 21:23:57 EDT 2002


Some PLEASE correct me if I am wrong...  But here is my take on what you
guys are saying.

So does that mean if somebody say makes a GPL'd version of winsock.dll
(for example) and replaces the propriatary version of winsock.dll on
their windows box with it, everything that is now using the new and
GPL'd dll is required to take on the GPL license or be sued by the FSF?

Or back to the web server example... If someone makes a web server
plugin that is propriatary, and writes it to the plugin API of a
propritary web server, and someone else loads their module into a web
server thats GPL'd that uses the same API (and thus works with the
module), does that mean that someone you do not even know or have
control over just forced you to GPL your code without you even knowing
it?

I do not understand this license... Really I do not :)  But the way you
guys are describing the linking process (specificly dynamic) it seems to
me that noone has control over code that they write anymore.  I can see
it now, some bastard (well in this case its not a bsatard ;) goes out
and writes a GPL'd API compatibility layer that allows you to run
windows programs on Linux (I do not think Wine is GPL'd is it?) thus
forcing all the windows companies out there to GPL their code... I don't
think so...  But that does sound like what you guys are talking about...

I think the only way we will ever know how or if this license will work
is if someone sues.  And I think that if someone does sue, the license
may fall apart...  I have not read it myself (nor could I, I do not
understand legalease AT ALL), but it sounds like it is not a very
logical license to me.

Mike

On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 08:47, Michael Hirsch wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 17:48, Andrew Grimmke wrote:
> > It is my understanding that this is the specific reason that the LGPL
> > was developed.  So that one could use a free library and not be bound by
> > the GPL. (lesser also stands for library)
> 
> Yes, that was the motivation.  But that was also before dynamic linking
> was common.  I think most people agree that statically linking to GPLed
> code requires the GPL for all code.  But the issue for dynamic linking
> is much more vague.
> 
> Matt Asay, in his article, claims that most people agree that
> dynamically linking to GPLed code does not require GPLing your code.  He
> says, this, but I couldn't find any justification for this claim other
> than the fact that Linus and the other kernel developers have agreed
> that code can make system calls to the GPLed kernel without requiring
> that the code be GPLed.  This is a far cry from linking GPLed libraries.
> 
> I also don't know of any programs that do what Asay is claiming--linking
> against GPLed libraries.  Lots of proprietary code links against glibc
> and other LGPLed libraries, but try releasing sealed code that links to
> readline (a GPLed library) and see how long before the FSF lawyers call
> you.
> 
> I do know of several software companies that dual license their
> libraries as either proprietary or GPL.  The most prominent example is
> Troll Tech with their qt library.  They do not agree that you can use
> their GPL library to develop closed code:
> 
>  Why is Qt Free Edition not distributed under the GNU Library (or Lesser) General Public License (LGPL)?
>  The LGPL is designed to "permit developers of non-free programs to use
> free libraries" (quote from the LGPL). In other words, if Qt Free
> Edition were LGPL'd, companies would not have to purchase the
> Professional or Enterprise Edition in order to make
> commercial/proprietary software, they could just use the Free Edition,
> free of charge. That would mean Trolltech would not get the revenue
> necessary for improving and extending Qt.
> <http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/free.html#Q2>
> 
> I think that you are acting dangerously if you link to GPLed libraries
> with closed code.  There is a definite case to be made for it, but,
> unlike Asay, I think there are very few precedents backing up such an
> action.
> 
> You are, however, safe if you link to LGPLed libriries and you may make
> system calls to the GPLed Linux kernel without risk.
> 
> --Michael
> 



---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.






More information about the Ale mailing list