Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
(I'm only responding to this here because I think understanding corner
cases and possible uses/abuses of the GPL is relevant to Debian in
general, so it seems within reasonable off-topic bounds. Of course,
if this ever becomes a discussion relevant to MPlayer's inclusion in
Debian, it should go to d-legal.)
(Just in case it's not clear: this issue is mostly academic at this
point, since, as far as I know, MPlayer has at least dropped the "no
binaries" thing. I'd still like to know whether this line of reasoning
is legitimate, however.)
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 09:41:03PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > The question is whether mplayer as a whole is necessarily considered a
> > derived work of the GPL code if they aren't distributing binaries. In
> > source form, it's possible they would be legally regarded as separate
> > works that are distributed together.
>
> I think the GPL is pretty clear about that :
> « But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is
> a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on
> the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend
> to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who
> wrote it. »
I don't believe that A's license has any bearing on the determination of
whether or not B is a derived work of A. It seems clear that a binary
linking A and B together is a derived work of both (therefore the GPL
can place restrictions on it), but it's less clear (to me) whether B's
source, which only references A (in the form of API calls), is a derived
work of A.
The line of reasoning[1] is that if nobody distributes binaries at all,
you're not creating a derived work and you don't have the GPL's
restrictions[2]. In this case, even the MPlayer team themselves can't
distribute binaries; once they do so, they're bound by the GPL
restrictions.
This usually isn't a problem, since it restricts the person modifying
the program as much as it restricts others.
(Is this line of reasoning correct? I don't want it to be; it's clearly
against the spirit of the GPL.)
[1] that Steve seems to be taking; I doubt Gabucino had any such
potentially legitimate reasoning, due to the fact that the most argument
he's been able to give is something vague about "free speech".
[2] for your own code that merely uses the GPL'd code; modifications to
existing GPL source are clearly derived works, I believe.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: