Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
Jules Bean wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Oliver Elphick wrote:
...
>> If you are looking at a legal document, you MUST look at what it actually
>> says. Since the GPL does not mention static versus dynamic linking, one
>> must see what it actually does say, which I analysed two or three posts
>> back. You have ignored this.
>
>Actually, it's a little more bizarre than you think, Oliver.
>
>Instinctively, I am inclined to agree with you on dynamic libraries - that
>they are not really 'part of a software work'. However, it has been made
>clear many times - including by RMS, who does understand the GPL fairly
>well - that law does not distinguish between static and dynaminc linking
>(indeed, obviously law knows nothing of these technical details) and
>*furthermore* that dynamic linking *is* considered a violation of the GPL
>in cases like this.
I know RMS says so; however, there is no case law (that I know of) and I
think that a judge will look at what the licence actually says and then at
the ordinary meaning of the words used. I would engage to put up at least
an arguable case that even static linking was excluded.
Those who have been arguing for a strict interpretation of the GPL object
to my insisting that additional clauses should be implied by the behaviour
of the authors; consistency requires the same here - if the actual words of
the GPL do not exclude dynamic linking, which they do not, dynamic linking
must be allowed, in the absence of an explicit statement to the contrary
from the authors.
...
>We do, of course, guarantee the right to modify them, by distributing them
>under the GPL. As you point out, this is not within our rights (we're not
>the coyright holders). However, by even appearing to our users to be
>guaranteeing this, I think we are 'doing wrong'.
By distributing them we merely make them available; we do not ourselves
put them under GPL - that has already been done by the authors. We have
no right to put someone else's work under any kind of licence. Perhaps
this should be made clear. After all, it is true of ALL our packages.
...
>> The fact is, that the GPL is not particularly well drafted and definitely
>> needs revision in the light of new developments in software technology.
>
>A little more respect might be appropriate. The GPL is a very clever
>document, and a great deal of thought and work was put into it. I do
>agree with you that it doesn't deal very clearly with modern modularised
>techniques, though.
That is my point. Its drafting did not contemplate dynamic libraries and
it really does not cover the point. If, as I suppose is the case, the
FSF want to cover dynamic linking, they need to revise the GPL.
--
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
========================================
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a
man soweth, that shall he also reap."
Galatians 6:7
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: