Re: Illustrating JVM bindings
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:09:58 -0500, Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:38:19AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > But we don't really want to set up a copyright assignment regime, so
> > > the FSF's insistence on waving the preliminary injunction club at
> > > unwary linkers is a red flag.
>
> Let's consider a release of libFoo under terms guided by your
> interpretation of the GPL and cases like lexmark and lotus v. borland:
>
> We are releasing libFoo under the GPL, but hold the interface and
> header files to be public domain.
>
> In GPL terms, the implementation -- the *.c files, and files built
> from those .c files at compile time -- are the Program, and must be
> distributed only under the terms of the GPL while the headers -- *.h
> files and build scripts -- may be incoroprated in anyone's program
> without copyright being an issue.
>
> In GPL terms, linking your program with libFoo is mere aggregation,
> and using your program in conjunction with libFoo constitutes running
> libFoo as a program.
>
> The GPL requirements for source code release when you modify libFoo
> only apply to the implementation itself -- not to programs which happen
> to use libFoo.
>
> As near as I can tell, this kind of release notice would satisfy the
> concerns your company has about the GPL.
>
> If that's not the case, I think you need to better understand the nature
> of your company's concerns.
Great. Except either this interpretation isn't part of the contract,
and therefore doesn't bind other contributors, or else I've created
another little almost-GPL fiefdom, and any bit of code that turns out
to have been copied from another project with a non-matching GPL
exemption gives the copyright holder leverage to sue me with the FSF's
help. This is clearly well intentioned, but it's no substitute for a
solid legal precedent or a change of heart from the FSF.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: