[ale] OT: GPL Question

[cfowler]

What if I create my own library.  And add a function call to my library
to GPL code.


/** GPL Code **

int
main(void)
{
	// Get some info
	info = getInfoFromMyLibrary();

}



Do I have to release the code in getInfoFromMyLibrary() ?

Chris

On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 09:20, Michael Hirsch wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 21:23, Mike Panetta wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Not at all.  You can't convert someone else's code to GPL, claims by
> Microsoft notwithstanding.  But if *you* write code designed to be
> linked to a GPLed dll you could get in trouble.  IMO, this is quite
> debatable, but that is Richard Stallman's interpretation.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Nope.  Intention matters.  Since the code was not written to link to the
> GPLed code it is not GPLed.  As above, this is quite debatable, but that
> is Richard Stallman's interpretation.
> 
> > 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...
> 
> You think Stallman's interpretation is bad, try MySQL's sometime.  They
> beleive that "linking" means "interfacing"--even across processes. 
> According to their interpretation, if you write code using, say, jdbc
> that interacts with MySQL then you need to GPL your code or by a license
> for MySQL.  The code may not even be on the same computer that MySQL is
> running on and they claim contamination.  I think that's hooey.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> It's actually quite readable and i recommend that you read it.  That is
> the only way to be informed.  The tricky part is not in the license
> anyway.  The concept of "derivative work" is part of copyright case law
> and not clarified in the document.  The question is whether linking to a
> library creates a work which is derivative of the library.  For static
> linking I think a very strong case can be made for "yes".  For dynamic
> linking or module loading a pretty strong case can be made for "no", but
> Stallman disagrees.  A question to think about is "How do static linking
> and dynamic linking differ, legally, and how should that effect the
> license of the source code?"  Since any code that can be dynamically
> linked can also be statically linked, that question is crucial.
> 
> --Michael
>  
> > 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.
> 
> 
> 



---
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.