Re: GPL and linking
Raul Miller wrote:
(presenting a very reasonable argument, but...)
>Let's say that we have a court case which involves some contested
>GPLed work. How should we proceed?
>
>First, let's consider a work which doesn't have any binaries. This
>would be no different from any other copyright case -- you have to
>show that the work in question is copyrighted under the GPL, and
>you'd have to show that the terms of the GPL are being violated.
>This should be relatively simple, and we can neglect sections 2 and
>3 (which are clearly being complied with if the rest of the license
>is being followed).
>
>Now let's imagine that we've got a case which involves binaries.
>What do we have to do?
>
>First, we need exhibits: the sources, and the binaries. Out of
>consideration for the court, we want to pick examples which are as
>simple as possible while representing all of the important
>contested issues. So let's imagine we have Exhibit A (the sources)
>and Exhibit B (the binary). [We need to also show that this binary
>is representative of something which is being distributed, but
>that's not really different from what you have to do in other
>copyright cases, so I'll ignore that part.]
>
>Second, we need to show that Exhibit B is derived from Exhibit A.
>Again, we want to present this in a simple and easily
>understandable form, and we want to also present complete
>information.
>
>Once we've shown that B is derived from A, we can start examining
>the terms of the GPL to make sure that they are being followed.
>
>For example, let's say now that we're the defending party, and we
>want to show that the mere aggregation clause applies. To do this,
>we would show that the disputed work could be replaced by something
>trivial, and that having done so, the program is still the same
>program -- we might do this by showing that it still has the same
>behavior.
Your argument here is interesting but it can be used to *prove* mere
aggregation... and...
>
>Switching sides again, if someone asserted that the mere
>aggregation clause applied, and used program behavior to make that
>assertion, and I believed that mere aggregation did not apply, I
>would show how the program failed to operate in some independent
>context, with the disputed section removed.
It can *not* be used to *disprove* mere aggregation... because the
defendant can substitute the disputed part for something *not*
trivial (as in, substituting libssl by libtls or something) and the
program will continue to work as usual.
>
>Is that clear enough?
>
>Now, back to the argument: an argument has been raised that the GPL
>is flawed because a "work based on the Program" defined in two
>parts, where the first part asserts that "work based on the
>Program" is a derivative work. The assertion has been made that
>the second part of that definition is meaningless.
>
>Let's assume that this assertion is true, that the second part of
>that definition is meaningless. Let's further assume that I can
>construct an example case where a work isn't covered by the GPL
>because the second part of that definition is meaningless. What
>would that mean?
It would mean you have a work that is a mere aggregation, and the
GPL explicitly permits the licensee to distribute the
merely-aggregated work.
>
>Since Section 0 says that the GPL grants you license to distribute
>this work, and since there's no part of the GPL that grants you
>license where Section 0 does not apply, in our hypothetical case we
>would have shown that the GPL does not grant you license to
>distribute this work.
You are still ignoring section 2, paragraph 3. My argument is the
following: any work containing the Program or parts of it that is
not a derivative work of the Program is, necessarily, an anthology
work containing such part of the Program and, as such, is permitted
by GPL #2§3 as a (mere) aggregation.
>
>At this point, either:
>
>A) Copyright law doesn't apply, so it doesn't matter that you don't
>have license, or
>
>B) The GPL doesn't apply, so it doesn't matter that the GPL doesn't
>grant you license, of
>
>C) Distributing the work is prohibited by law.
>
>My argument is that if you reach C) by ignoring the second half of
>the definition of "work based on the Program", that you're doing
>something wrong.
>
>Does that make sense?
>
Yes. But I agree to disagree with you.
--
HTH,
Massa
Reply to: