Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>:
> > No, he is not talking about "fair use". He is, I think, talking about
> > two things:
> > (1) The idea that compiling and linking a program is not restricted by
> > copyright; you don't need special permission to compile and link a
> > program once you have obtained a copy of it.
>
> Advertising is less restricted by copyright. Advertising is typically
> carried out by third parties. [an ad agency, etc.]
???
> > Compiling and linking does involve making a local copy, but this is an
> > unavoidable part of using the program and you are not distributing it.
>
> Copyright law grants an explicit exemption for certain kinds of local
> copies in the context of computer programs. However, that exemption
> doesn't say anything about creating derived works by combining two bodies
> of work.
I don't belong to the school that believes that everything is
forbidden unless explicitly permitted.
> > (2) The way the GPL seems to support this idea:
> >
> > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
> > not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act
> > of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the
> > Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based
> > on the Program (independent of having been made by running the
> > Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
>
> This is an activity involving copying, distribution and modification,
> so I don't see why you think this clause applies. [Unless you advocate
> the viewpoint that you can break down the steps into sufficiently small
> steps, no individual step being illegal? Here, we're copying the letter
> "A", etc.]
It's not at all clear from the context what you mean by "this", but I
can only guess you mean "combining proprietary code and GPL for
in-house use". This need not involve distribution, I think.
Currently my own opinion is that it's all right to combine proprietary
code and GPL code if you don't distribute the result, but it's not all
right to tell other people to do it, because, by telling other people
to do it, you are covertly distributing the result.
Whether "in-house use" counts as distribution is a separate problem
with lots of borderline cases, but I hold that use by a single natural
person at a single address is not distribution.
Edmund
Reply to: