[Bug 470703] Review Request: links 2 - text mode browser with graphics
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Apr 11 04:48:17 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
--- Comment #41 from Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka at redhat.com> 2009-04-11 00:48:17 EDT ---
> # Incompatible with GPL
> BuildConflicts: openssl-devel
Could anyone please explain, why so you think that it is illegal to dynamically
link GPL and NON-GPL code?
My point of view:
1. there is not any single legal case where it was found that dynamic linking
is considered as creating derivate works. If it were viewed as creating
derivate works, then loading browser plugins or running windows media player
would be illegal activity, because it involves linking several dynamic
libraries from different vendors with different licenses that do not allow
creating derivate works (even normal commercial software could not have
plugins, regardless of GPL).
2. even if dynamic linking were viewed as creating derivate works, the derivate
work is created by the USER when he RUNS the program. Not by the packager who
distributes the binary (Links binary package contains none of OpenSSL code, it
contains only symbols names, and symbols names are not copyrightable).
3. GPL doesn't prevent anyone from creating derivate work of GPL programs and
GPL-incompatible programs. It only prevents distributing such works. You can
mix GPL code with whatever you like as long as you don't distribute it. So even
if dynamic linking was viewed as creating derivate works, the only effective
thing is that the user cannot distribute the core dump of the program (which
contains both GPL-covered and GPL-incompatible code). He can definitelly run
the program and let the dynamic linker create the "derivate work".
When I said these arguments to Debian people, they basically couldn't say
anything against them, but didn't really want to drop their policy anyway and
asked me to add a paragraph to COPYING file. So I did. But I still don't
understand WHY is it wrong to dynamically link GPL and non-GPL code?
It almost looks like someone said it and people are repeating it like parrots.
Is there any trustworthy legal opinion on this issue?
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review