Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
Raul Miller wrote:
>> Such a combination would be a modification under clause 2. There are
>> three cases to consider: first, where a GPL library is linked with a
>> non-free Program; second, where a GPL program is modified and linked
>> to a non-free library; and lastly, where a GPL program is combined
>> with other non-free parts (which are not libraries).
>
>The only mention made of a library in the GPL is to suggest that
>you may want to use the LGPL if you're writing a library. So you're
>introducing a bogus distinction here. If your logic is correct when
>applied to libraries it must be equally correct when not applied to
>libraries, and vice versa. So there's nothing new introduced in your
>third case.
In the third case, the distinction between dynamic and static linking
is irrelevant.
>
>> The important words in 2 b) are 'contains or is derived from'. The legal
>> question to be answered is whether this applies to a shared library.
>> Now I think it is clear that a program that links to a shared library
>> does not contain it; if the shared library is not loaded, no part of it
>> is present, therefore it cannot be contained in the program. It follows,
>> then, that it must be covered, if it is covered at all, by the words 'is
>> derived from'. Now, to be derived from another program, a new program
>> must contain at least a small part of the first program, even if
>> modified in some way. Since a program linked with a shared library does
>> not contain _any_ part of that library, this cannot apply either. [RMS
>> has stated that it does, but the language of the GPL does not support
>> this. I think that FSF need to issue a new version of the GPL if they
>> wish to have modification cover shared library linking.]
>
>
>The definition of a Program includes the phrase: "any such program or work
>[which is licensed under the GPL] or any derivative work under copyright
>law: that is to say a work containing the Program or a portion of it..."
>
>In section 2, it says:
>
> "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"
>
>Do you see what it says here? There's *no* requirement that the work
>be a single binary. There's *no* requirement that the work be shipped
>in its entirety. There's not even an implication that a work would not
>encompass multiple files. What matters is that the work as a whole must
>meet the minimum standards set forth in the GPL.
>
>In the case of KDE, we are talking about works which, when taken as
>a whole, are made up of Qt, of GPLed code, and whatever else.
But, as I pointed out, clause 2 only applies to modifications; we do not
modify KDE in any way.
You have separated the second part of my posting (which refers to the
general problems of applying the GPL when modifying other people's
code) and made it apply to KDE, to which I made it clear it does not
apply.
--
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
========================================
"Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another;
be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and
humble. Do not repay evil for evil or insult for
insult, but with blessing, because to this you were
called so that you may inherit a blessing."
I Peter 3:8,9
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: