On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:45:36AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: [snip excellent example of wild linking graphs] > Some argue that this is in violation of the GPL. I, however, fail to > see how any part involved, except the FTP plugin, can possibly be > construed a derivative of the GPL'd library. I don't think it's a GPL violation. To my way of thinking, the derivatives graph would look like this (where "A --> B" means "B is a derivative work of A"): GPL'd library --> FTP plugin <-- plugin loader plugin loader --> HTTP plugin <-- curl <-- OpenSSL (I've broken up the graph at the plugin loader for space, not because the two relationship sets don't hold simultaneously) So, reading this, the FTP plugin is a derivative of the loader and the GPL'd library, so the FTP plugin's licence must be compatible with both of those (with the loader being MIT, the plugin could be MIT, BSD, GPL, whatever). The HTTP plugin, being a derivative of the loader and curl/OpenSSL needs to have a licence compatible with those. I think it's a big leap to determine that the FTP plugin is a derivative of the HTTP plugin, or vice versa, if there are no elements of one which are involved in the other. While lawyers can sometimes convince a judge that black is white, I certainly wouldn't be going into a legal case expecting to win if I were either of the GPL'd library or OpenSSL authors looking for damages due to licence infringement. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature