[ale] A licensing question...

[Transam]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:56:29AM -0500, Michael D. Hirsch wrote:
> On Saturday 25 January 2003 07:26 pm, John Wells wrote:
> > Bob,

> > My main concern was using script libraries that were GPL'd.  For
> > example, if there was a php class library (all just scripts) that was
> > called FooBarLib.

The LGPL is for this.

> There have been several articles in recent months interpreting the GPL to 
> allow dynamic linking of proprietary code with GPLed libraries.  If you 
> don't allow this you end up with a variety of legal conundroms like what 
> happens if someone writes a GPLed library that replaces some proprietary 
> library that you linked to--is your code now GPLed? Basically the GPL is 
> vague on dynamic linking, and there are serious problems with trying to 
> disallow it.

The LGPL should be used by library writers.

> OTOH, RMS definitely believes that dynamic linking is not allowed.

It's vague as to whether a library with GPL rather than LGPL makes the
whole program GPL'ed.  The intent of a library is to provide a service
much as an operating system.  Because the kernel is GPL'ed does not cause
everything running under it to be GPL'ed.

> On the far extreme is MySQL's interpretation of the GPL.  They claim that 
> running a program that interacts with their GPLed MySQL server is "linked" 
> with their server and must be GPLed.  I don't think that has been tested 
> in court, and I don't even think it would hold up in court, but there it 
> is.

Their interpretation is very UNlikely to hold up in court as the language
of the GPL is pretty specific and contradicts their claim.  Their claim
is as absurd as claiming that since the "date" program is GPL'ed that
its invocation in a script makes the script GPL'ed.

People also forget that to be legally important in a suit one must
demonstrate damages, i.e., lost business.  Since one is giving away
the code anyway, this will be very hard to do.  Second, they only would
bother suing a big company ('cause anyone else has no money).  Big companies
simply can bankrupt them in legal fees.  Third, I know of no significant
cases in this area.

The fears of using GPL code don't translate into any significant risk.

Ask yourself who has done major actions against customers for improper
use of software and collected big fees?  The only one I know is Microsoft.

> Michael

Bob Toxen
bob at verysecurelinux.com                [Please use for email to me]
http://www.verysecurelinux.com         [Network&Linux/Unix security consulting]
Quality Linux & UNIX security and SysAdmin & software consulting since 1990.

"Microsoft: Unsafe at any clock speed!"
   -- Bob Toxen 10/03/2002
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale