Re: Question about packaging a library.
Just so things are clear - I am not a lawyer.
Neil Williams wrote:
On Sunday 22 May 2005 2:56 pm, punx120 wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it.
Then you should not use this library with free software, certainly not with
the GPL.
So what licence are you using for your program?
Since it's my first "big" program, I'm not used with license, but i use
GPL v2.
You mean link a GPL program against a library that is non-free?!?!?!
"Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries?
Your program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If your program
depends on a non-free library to do a certain job, it cannot do that job in
the Free World. If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, it cannot
be part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to
the Free World."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
That's not a legal reason. That's an ideological reason.
The GPL does NOT permit you to link a GPL program with a non-free library -
one that doesn't permit the distribution of it's source code under the terms
of the GPL - which includes for commercial use. Your library doesn't allow
commercial use, so it cannot be used by a GPL program. Find another licence
or create the library from scratch.
I'm sorry, but that is totally wrong. Are you claiming that rsyncrypto
is illegal, because it is GPL and links with OpenSSL (which is BSD)?
And if you claim this ridiculous claim, who is the offended party? Who
has the power to sue me for GPL violation? I'm the sole copyright holder.
If you really want to make your code free, you might want to put an
exception into your GPL license saying it's ok to link with this
library. See
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
"I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability
libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code for
these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions would have
to obtained those libraries separately. Why doesn't the GPL permit this?
If we permitted company A to make a proprietary file, and company B to
distribute GPL-covered software linked with that file, the effect would be to
make a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck through. This would be
carte blanche for withholding the source code for all sorts of modifications
and extensions to GPL-covered software.
But that's not the case here, is it? He's the copyright holder for the
GPL part.
Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a
single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole
combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do
that, you may not combine them.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
"If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that
any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. "
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
Actually, if I want to package this program and this library, it's
essentially to know more about
licencing!
Read the GNU GPL FAQ and read the licence for this library VERY carefully. You
might be able to use another licence but I cannot see that you can use the
GPL with the library restricted as you've described.
You will probably be restricted to a non-free licence.
You forgot the "I am not a layer" disclaimer. You really really should
put one there, because it seems to my unprofessional opinion that your
advice has no legal basis. Even the GNU FAQ, which I sometimes disagree
with, claims you can release the code as above (see
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs. I know
you quoted from that one, but please do read the whole of the answer, as
you only quoted part of it).
I agree with you about non-free stuff, but at the time I wrote the
program, i need a library like fmod, fmod suited me, so I used it !
Please understand your situation before releasing this - you have contaminated
the program with this library and either you replace that library in it's
entirety, or you use a different licence. As it is, this is a non-free
product, despite your claim to licence it under the GPL - it is not free and
not fully GPL compatible.
Not entirely true. It is no less free than WinCVS or Mozilla for
Windows. It cannot go into Debian main. It's a definite downside.
However, please accept that some people apply less significance to the
question of "purely free" than you do, and don't give advice based on
legal situation as you would like it to be, rather than as it is. As it
is, punx cannot TECHNICALLY perform a GPL violation with his code, as he
is the copyright holder, and does not need anyone's license in order to
distribute the code. As the GPL only applies where a copyright license
is needed, punx is not bound by it.
Without the exception mentioned above, this would put everyone into the
awkward situation where the code is GPL, but it cannot be compiled as
distributed without yanking fmod out. This would definitely put
potential users of the library in a tough spot, but does not make the
code any less free.
I'll also mention that I have my own doubt regarding how necessary this
exception is. I documented them in the "COPYING" file for rsyncrypto, if
you're interested. I tried to give an online pointer to the file, but
the SourceForge WebCVS gateway is down at the moment. Either apt-get
install it and look at the license file, or go to
http://sourceforge.net/projects/rsyncrypto, hope that the webcvs is back
by the time you look, and look at the COPYING file in the source CVS tree.
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html
Reply to: