Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> writes:

> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:15:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> 
>>>>More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary
>>>>is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not.  (I'm not sure
>>>>if this impacts your point, but it's an important distinction.)
>>>
>>>That's debatable.  If your program is written against a library, and
>>>there is only one implementation of that library, I would argue that the
>>>source is a derivative of the library as well.  Things get more complex
>>>if there are multiple implementations, of course.
>> 
>> LGPL clause 5 seems to express the FSF's view on this, which seems
>> correct and reasonable to me:
>> 
>> "  5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
>> Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or
>> linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library".  Such a
>> work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and
>> therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
>> 
>>   However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library
>> creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
>> contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the
>> library".  The executable is therefore covered by this License.
>> Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables."
>
> I see.  Thank you, that clarifies perfectly.
>
> I had thought from previous GPL discussions that "distribute the source
> and let users link it" was not a reasonable way to sidestep license
> compatibility issues, because the source was still a derived work.  Does
> this mean that one can distribute the source (or object files, even) of
> a program that links to a GPLed library, and just let users link it?
> That seems like a rather large loophole.

No.  The FSF's claim is that the source for some program using, say,
the GNU Readline library, is essentially bundled with instructions for
building this into a binary which incorporates GNU Readline.  Anybody
distributing such sources is very clearly suggesting that users do the
final assembly, and has certainly built it themselves to test it.

So there's somebody building a copyright-violating work, and
distributing copies of it in a strangely compressed form.  That
doesn't make it any *less* infringing.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu