[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:56:02PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:23:24PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > >>> > Do you think that this licence does not require a developer
> > >>> > of a modified package (other than PHP) to lie by saying
> > >>> > "This product includes PHP software"?
> > >>> 
> > >>> Perhaps the PHP folks subscribe to the view that PHP scripts are
> > >>> derivative works of PHP.
> > >>
> > >> Ye ghods, I'd hope not.  That would be similar to believing that this
> > >> message is a derivative of the English Grammar manual I read in school.
> > >
> > > Or that all non-trivial Emacs Lisp code must be licensed under the
> > > GPL.  This position is not *that* unusual...
> > 
> > Not being unusual doesn't make it sensible or correct.
> Just to take a guess at where this strange claim might have originated:
> The FSF (from what I understand) claims that binaries linked against GPL
> libraries are derivative works of the library, because the resulting
> binary has pieces of the GPL software in it.  This isn't obviously true
> with C libraries, which has led to a lot of debate around the topic, but
> the claim isn't entirely unreasonable.

Assuming that "linked" in your paragraph above means "dynamically linked"
(as your second sentence suggests), can you provide a cite from the FSF
which makes this claim, with rationale?  I looked around, as research for my
blog post "Linking does not create a derivative work"
and couldn't find anything that really actually made the claim in those

- Matt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: