Re: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
You inverted the "do more" and "do less". Publishing an arbitrary set
of
anthologies is "do more" as compared to publishing one story.
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does not constitute permission to distribute binaries. The principle
under Brazilian law seems to be that restrictions on distribution of
sources automatically apply to binaries.
You managed to mangle something very simple.
1. Permission to distribute sources is ... a permission to distribute
sources.
2. Permission to distribute binaries is ... a permission to distribute
binaries.
3. Permission to distribute some work is ... a permission to distribute
said work in any form, and fixated in any medium, tangible or
intangible, including binary and source form.
Which one is given in the GPL? #1 and #2.
GPL#1 gives you permission to distribute verbatim copies of the source,
in any medium.
GPL#2 gives you permission to make derivative works, as long as you do
one of 2.a, 2.b, or 2.c; furthermore (IMHO at least) it gives you
permission to make anthology works containing the original work; and it
gives you permission to distribute your derivative or anthology work.
GPL#3 gives you permission to distribute executable or binary copies of
the work as long as you do one of 3.a (possibly combined with 3§2), 3.b,
or 3.c; furthermore, it gives you permission to distribute (your)
derivative work in executable or binary form, provided you already did
one of 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, under the same conditions.
Suppose the libc runtime is given in some system by a work named
gpld_libc. Is hello_world.c a derivative work of gpld_libc ? I don't
think so.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int, char**) {
puts("Hi"); return 0;
}
What is a dynamically compiled file hello_world? An intangible medium
containing: my hello_world.c work, translated automatically + (possibly)
some (non-protectable by virtue of defining an interface) bits grinded
by the compiler/linker, extracted from gpld_libc (eg, compiler macros,
etc). Can I distribute it under any license I see fit? Yes, I think so.
What is a statically compiled file hello_world? An intangible medium
containing: my hello_world.c work, translated automatically +
(automatically) selected parts of gpld_libc. Can I distribute it under
any license I see fit? Yes, I think so... as long as I obey 3.a (c/w
3§2), 3.b, or 3.c WRT glibc (as I am now distributing glibc together
with my hello_world program).
This certainly clarifies arguments about the GPL in the context of
Brazilian law.
I hope it is more clear now.
Thanks,
Ok. Now (again) back to the libssl problem.
Is a daemon "dx.c" that when compiled, links with libsnmp, and
indirectly with libssl, a derivative work of any of them? In principle, no.
Considering dx.c is not a derivative work of libsnmp nor of libssl, and
that libsnmp is GPLd and libssl is BSD/4-clause-licensed (incompatible
licenses), can I distribute an executable file, statically compiled,
that contains dx.c + libsnmp + libssl? Yes, as long as I do one of 3.a,
3.b, 3.c WRT libsnmp.
Under the same assumptions, can I distribute an executable file,
dynamically compiled of dx.c? YES. With NO STRINGS ATTACHED. Under any
license I see fit, provided I am the copyright holder of dx.c.
I want to explain that I understand why Debian tries to avoid this kind
of situation, as a matter of courtesy (supposing the copyright owner of
libsnmp interprets the GPL the same as the FSF FAQ), but it seems to me
that clarifications and explicit linking exceptions should be sought
*first*, and that the "offending" software should be removed only if the
copyright holder *denies* such clarifications.
--
HTH,
Massa
Reply to: