Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

bug1@iinet.net.au wrote:
> Quoting Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>:
> 
> > This is tricky.  The relevant section in the GPL is 
> > 
> >   But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
> >   is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
> >   be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other
> >   licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every
> >   part regardless of who wrote it.
> > 
> > So, is the library part of the "whole"?  If the company does not
> > distribute the BSD licensed library on the machine, then it is fairly
> > clear that the proprietary library is part of the whole.  However, if
> > the BSD library is also included, then it becomes unclear.  I could
> > see it going either way, depending on the judge and lawyers.
> > 
> > This is what you call lawyerbait.
> 
> Thanks for your reply, just a clarification.
> 
> The section of the GPL you posted above is from section 2 which covers
> distribution of  modified GPL'ed works.
> 
> In this case the GPL binary being distriuted is from unmodified source
> code, all the modifications are in the GPL incompatible library.
> The GPL apps dont need to be modified as the GPL incompatible library
> is a drop in replacment for the existing BSD license that the GPL app
> was built against.
> 
> So i assume now that they are distributing the GPL app under clause 1,
> that they can distribute the unmodified GPL binary and GPL incompatible
> library together, and are only required to make source available for the
> GPL'ed application, not the GPL incompatible library.

Distributing object code falls under clause 3, which references clause
2.  Clause 2 talks about "modified work as a whole" which even
includes parts which "can be reasonably considered independent and
separate works in themselves".  So whether the GPL'd parts are
modified does not actually matter.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu