Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 01:46:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> FooCorp doesn't do any linking with GPLed code in these
> scenarios. Further, the linking is only done on the users machine, in
> a manner explicitly allowed by the copyright holders of both pieces
> of code (the GPL allows you to do pretty much whatever if you don't
> distribute; and we can presume FooCorp doesn't mind you linking with A
> in the hypothetical).
A user is extremely unlikely to come up with the idea to combine random
piece of code B from FooCorp with random piece of GPLed code A from
Debian. So, if there's a lot of users doing this, there must be
a reason for it.
> > in this case, you're describing the creation of a derivative work which
> > violates the license on the original work.
>
> No, I'm describing the creation of a derivative work in a manner that
> violates the spirit of the license on the original work, but appears
> not to violate the letter.
That appearance requires ignorance of some of the relevant details.
> For concreteness, let's assume that "A" is an SSL/TLS library, and
> "B" is some random SSL using thing, maybe a non-free application
> for accessing your bank account. We can use gnutls for the GPL
> implementation of A, and OpenSSL for the non-GPL implementation of A.
Ok, so foothing + gnutls represents the illegal work.
> For the sake of argument, further assume that gnutls and openssl are
> binary-compatible (ie, both provide libssl.so.0), and conflict. [0]
>
> FooCorp happens to be a BSD shop, and uses OpenSSL for their
> development. They also happen to be generally nice guys, and so also
> build .debs for their product. It's non-free only because the bank
> they built the program for is scared of making the source publically
> available.
>
> Assume the package relationships look like:
>
> B Build-Depends: openssl-dev
> B Build-Conflicts: gnutls
>
> B Depends: libssl0.9.6 | gnutls0.9.6
Ok, so FooCorp is specifying that foothing + gnutls be built.
> FooCorp builds the package. They end up with a program that works
> without having touched any GPLed software.
"touched" isn't a copyright issue.
FooCorp is causing the distribution of an illegal work.
> Who are you claiming has violated the GPL? FooCorp, who've done their
> development with LGPLed and BSDed libraries and had the gall to run
> sed over their Depends: line?
Yep.
> * Two packages, libA and B, both non-free. Distributed separately
> by FooCorp as .debs. License is "Do what you want with it, just
> don't give copies to anyone else."
Ok, no redistribution.
> * Independently, someone thinks libA is cool, and does an clean room
> implementation that's compatible at both binary and source levels,
> creating libA-gpl. It's uploaded to Debian. It Conflicts: with
> libA.
That's not reasonable. libA isn't distributable by Debian, so there's no
reason for that Conflicts.
> Who, exactly, has done anything illegal here, or in contravention of
> the GPL?
I'd need a lot more detail (beyond what I clipped out) about how this
could possibly happen.
> Who's done something illegal here, and what precisely was it? Is
> developing non-free clones of GPLed software illegal?
Distributing them such that many people are building illegal derived
copies is certainly illegal.
> If so, some non-free companies might be interested in exactly how
> you've managed to make it illegal, so they can do away with annoying
> things like Samba. Or is it illegal for users to do some things with
> GPLed software even in the privacy of their own homes?
That too, though none of the examples you presented here made that
particularly relevant.
FYI,
--
Raul
Reply to: