[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?

On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 03:32:45PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 11:14:00PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > What is this subtle difference ?
> > Oh, and remember shared memory, and other IPCs between
> > linking and piping.
> Piping is done by using both components in a bigger structure (the pipe is
> added by the user, not something that is provided by either application).
> Also, there is no advertised interface for piping. (a pipe is just a byte
> stream).

Does it mean that obscurity of way of comunicating between two
copyrighted works means anything for copyright laws ?

Where do you thing copyright law starts binding ?

1 ) pipe
2 ) shared memory
3 ) corba
4 ) remote procedure call
5 ) dynamic linking
6 ) dynamic linking, program and lib merged by tar :)
8 ) static linking

> However, note that the output of a program is usually subject to copyright
> law, so a pipe is legal if the license for the output allows usage of it.
> The GPL explicitely does not restrict usage.

No, program's output is not subject of copyright law.
If it were, you couldn't write free software on MSnotepad,
because files you made were belonging to MS.

> > Calling functions that are not contained by your program.
> > Is (asm:int) so different than (asm:call) for copyright purposes ?
> I don't know what (asm:*) is.

i386 assembler functions : int and call

> However, there is no difference between
> calling kernel functions or library functions.

So why do you think one can use proprietary kernel but couldn't use
proprietary lib if headers were pd ?

> You are thinking very strange.


> What you think is not restricted is actually
> subject to restrictions but allowed because the licenses explicitely allow
> it. Piping is restricted, but allowed as "use" by all free software licenses
> (if you don't bundle the application and distribute them as a whole).
> Calling kernel functions is restricted, but allowed by the linux kernel
> license (or the other way round, by the GPL in the exception clause).

Piping restricted ?
This sounds like prohibiting storing two books on the shelve by its

You can do anything (ex: piping its output) but redistributing
with software (anything) you have legally aquired.

And calling kernel is not legal because it is allowed by license,
but because it is claimed to be *usage*.
not because license allows it, but because it isn't subject of copyright law.

Reply to: