Re: Legal status of using a GPL'd LD_PRELOADed with a non-GPL'd app ...
On Mar 07, Timshel Knoll wrote:
> I've posted an ITP[1] for libtrash, a library that uses LD_PRELOAD to
> intercept application calls to unlink(), rename(), open(), fopen(),
> freopen() and other system calls which may delete/truncate files, and
> moves them to a "trash can" rather than deleting them. My question is
> this: libtrash is licensed under the GPL, and the LD_PRELOAD is likely
> to allow non-GPL'd (including non-free) binary code to use it. The
> binary code is not actually "linked" with libtrash, however.
>
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=137108&repeatmerged=yes
>
> Branden Robinson seems to think that the distribution of this is OK, but
> suggested that I bring this discussion to the -legal forum. Any ideas on
> this?
The GPL really only applies when you are distributing a GPL'd work
linked to a non-GPL'd work. Using LD_PRELOAD is not distribution, so
I can't see how this would pose a problem.
The only exception I can think of is if someone distributed a script
like (lame example):
#!/bin/sh
LD_PRELOAD="/your/hack/here" /usr/bin/nonfree-application
That case might be problematic from a legal standpoint, and might be
worth mentioning in README.Debian. Even there, the legal issue is
somewhat ambiguous, though I think the FSF's position would be that
this is infringement (it certainly violates the spirit of the GPL).
But the script is incredibly trivial, so it's hard to argue that even
it is infringement (especially since an end-user doing this
independently wouldn't be infringement, and you could tell an end-user
how to do this in documentation).
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <lawrencc@debian.org> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
Reply to: