On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:15:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Is it any help to cite the libreadline/libeditline case? Readline is a > > > GPLed library authored by the FSF. Editline is a BSD-licensed clone > > > (with a limited feature set) developed by people who weren't happy with > > > Readline's licensing. > > I think it's an interesting case to consider because of the question of > > whether an interface is copyrightable, but I think that discussion is > > best left for another thread. In any case, I believe the "generic > > interface" defense is only applicable when the distributor is not > > distributing a combination that requires selecting one specific > > implementation as the default. > I am not sure the U.S. courts agree.[1][2] I don't see how the cases you cite conflict with what I said. In both of the cases, IIRC, the courts found in favor of someone who duplicated a competitor's interface. This seems to support (API vs. user interface question aside) the notion that the generic interface defense *is* applicable when you aren't distributing someone else's copyrighted implementation of the generic interface. However, it does not establish a precedent for the case where you *are* distributing the plaintiff's copyrighted work which provides a given interface. Apple v. Microsoft doesn't mean Microsoft could claim MacOS no longer enjoys copyright protection just because someone cloned the UI. > > To restate: If distributing a statically-linked binary that combines a > > GPL library with GPL-incompatible code is a violation of the GPL, then > > shipping *any other combination of files* which constitute a program > > that, when run, result in a corresponding intermingling of GPL and > > GPL-incompatible code in memory is also a violation of the GPL. You > > cannot circumvent the GPL's requirements on source code by shipping your > > combined work in the form of a GPLed library and a GPL-incompatible > > program; nor can you circumvent them by writing (or reusing) a GPL > > interpreter and shipping it together with the GPLed library and your > > GPL-incompatible script (bytecode). (I'm going to ignore the much > > hairier RPC question for the moment. :) > > > Because the two libraries are interface-compatible, the FSF is not in a > > > position to forbid people from distributing code that "links" against > > > libreadline if that code is not licensed GPL-compatibly, because the > > > code could be linked against libeditline instead.[1] > > Yes, but they are in a position to forbid distributing such code > > together with readline itself. > I hate to say this because I love my bright-line tests, but I think > intent matters here. Shipping "such code together with readline > itself", and nothing else, should be distinguishable from what Debian > does, which is ship "such code", "readline itself", a clone or two of > readline, and a whole boatload of other stuff that has nothing to do > with any of the above. I think references to the file name of the GPL'ed library in an application's ELF header constitute pretty damning evidence of the real intent. "Your honor, the plaintiff's license is non-binding because I could have used editline instead" doesn't sound like much of a defense to me. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpK1hE74HJIi.pgp
Description: PGP signature