Re: no need to keep non-copylefted files that way in a copylefted project. (was Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence)
On 20/03/2019, Giovanni Mascellani <gio@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Il 20/03/19 12:25, Giacomo Tesio ha scritto:
>> The current construct is a violation of the GPL term as that code is
>> derivative of GPL code for all intents and purposes. So much that it
>> cannot even compile without the GPL code.
>
> I don't understand what does this matter. Copyright apply to thing
> independently of whether they compile or not. [...]
Harry Potter is not Pulcinella.
Hermion is not Colombina.
If you use these names you do not borrow from Commons, from cultural
archetypes and characters known to the public, but to specific Rowling
creations.
Arguing that your work is not derivative of Rowling one would sound
ridiculous to any judge.
This doesn't rule out your fandom by itself, but it IS a derivative work.
Law might permit it or not, Rowling might tolerate it or not, but it
IS evidently a derivative work. Just like if you take the Rowling book
and want to write the script of a Hollywood film about the same
history, you need her permission
How this relates to compilation?
If the GPL header at
https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/lib/command.h is required
by https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/babeld/babel_interface.c
it means that it depends on its text, whose copyright holder gave you
the right to use according to the GPL.
It's exactly like using Harry Potter into your own fandom porn novel.
Rowling might have something to object. ;-)
Since you can't remove, say, INTERFACE_NODE from its
babel_interface.c, and you got INTERFACE_NODE as GPL in command.h,
babel_interface.c is a derivative of command.h and thus has to be
released under GPL.
> So this example really convinces me that FRR people are doing right, and
> there is no reason for Debian to change anything there.
Well... I hope to have clarified the misunderstanding, now. ;-)
Giacomo
Reply to: