On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:51:03PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> A dynamically-linked kghostview is completely non-functional without
> the Qt library. Qt is irrevocably bound up in that executable,
> whether or not any of Qt's code is actually contained in kghostview.
> (Besides which, some of Qt's code will be contained in the executable,
> due to Qt's slot concept which [IIRC] requires preprocessing of the
> source.)
I'll agree with you here.
> Hypothetical: I build something under a proprietary license, and then
> use the dl*() calls to access a GPLed library (let's use Readline for
> example). Even though my software doesn't strictly-speaking contain
> Readline, it doesn't function without it being present. I'm clearly
> going beyond "mere aggregation" or using a fork-exec.
I don't agree with you here. The GPL doesn't say that. This is one of
those cases where you're deliberately trying to work around the GPL and in
this case it is my (non-professional layman's) opinion that you would have
succeeded. Of course you do that and we'll have to lynch you or
something because we're at times a militant lot and you'd be doing
something the GPL's spirit condemns, even if its letter permits..
There is a BSDish readline clode whose interface matches readline's.. If
you wrote your dl*() access of libreadline using that non-GPL'd interface
definition, you would have succeeded in circumventing the GPL.
Now if you pulled something like that with a M$ EULA (much harder to do,
they cover all bases better) you'd get sued anyway because M$ would know
that you would run out of money first. And even if you didn't, they could
argue that you were essentially doing what you were---trying to find a
loophole to allow you to do something you are not permitted to do. They
would argue your intent makes you guilty of violating the EULA whether you
violated its letter or not. They'd have a chance at winning it too, even
thouch contract law pretty much says quite the opposite (ie, that if their
contract DOESN'T provide for such a case, it's their own fault, etc)
The law is not applied universally in this case. A lot of lattitude is
granted to "computer industry" companies to protect their software that
doesn't apply to Copyrights on books or anything else for that matter.
You or I could not sue someone for violating the spirit of a license and
win, but someone like M$ could. (I pick on them because they're an easy
target...)
It doesn't have to make sense.. I am talking about US law related to
computers and technology. The people making the laws are clueless. The
people upholding the laws equally so. It is almost always a case of best
lawyer wins, regardless of the laws on the books. A sorry state of
affairs.
I could delve further into your message, but the primary point I need to
address is that there are no points for violating the spirit of the GPL
here. We're not big software companies so we're not going to have much
leeway to claim a violation of the spirit means anything except that the
GPL doesn't cover the case in question properly.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian Linux developer
http://tank.debian.net GnuPG key pub 1024D/DCF9DAB3 sub 2048g/3F9C2A43
http://www.debian.org 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
"I am ecstatic that some moron re-invented a 1995 windows fuckup."
-- Alan Cox
Attachment:
pgpoQyO7HeEK0.pgp
Description: PGP signature