Hi, Ok, I have to admit, I have not been playing close attention to this discussion, but what I have seen has raised a question for me. I would like a clarification. Do I, as an end user have the right to install non-GPL software (e.g. RealPlayer) on my Linux box if it links to GPL software? Can I install non-GPL software which links to anything it wants to on my computer? Is it legal for non-GPL software distributors (RealPlayer, et. al) to furnish software to me which links to GPL software? Wouldn't it only be a problem if I were to somehow redistribute the non-GPL--GPL software combination? In other words, can non-GPL distributors (again RealPlayer for example), give me whatever software they want to, which links to whatever it wants to, as long as I, the end-user, do not distribute the resulting GPL-non--GPL combination? Thank you.
Don Bedsole wrote:
Hi, Ok, I have to admit, I have not been playing close attention to this discussion, but what I have seen has raised a question for me. I would like a clarification. Do I, as an end user have the right to install non-GPL software (e.g. RealPlayer) on my Linux box if it links to GPL software? Can I install non-GPL software which links to anything it wants to on my computer? Is it legal for non-GPL software distributors (RealPlayer, et. al) to furnish software to me which links to GPL software? Wouldn't it only be a problem if I were to somehow redistribute the non-GPL--GPL software combination? In other words, can non-GPL distributors (again RealPlayer for example), give me whatever software they want to, which links to whatever it wants to, as long as I, the end-user, do not distribute the resulting GPL-non--GPL combination? Thank you.
I had always thought that you /are/ permitted to install non-GPL software on your own box, even if it links to GPL software. Indeed, the /Lesser/ or /Library/ GPL specifically permits you to /link/ to publicly licensed libraries, so long as you do not try to /modify/ those libraries and then claim ownership over them.
Then again, the GPL maintainers are under no obligation to respect backward compatibility of a non-GPL application. The commercial vendor thus must accept the responsibility of rebuilding his program when necessary.
But you may not /distribute/ a GPL/non-GPL package.
This is why Fedora /never/ distributes with MP3 libraries or applications. You have to get them separately from another repository, if you want to play something in that format. And I assume that most people here would advise you never to /rip/ to MP3, but rather stick to Ogg-Vorbis or other GPL sound format.
If I have misconstrued any of the above, I welcome any correction.
Temlakos
On 2/20/06, Temlakos temlakos@gmail.com wrote:
But you may not /distribute/ a GPL/non-GPL package.
I presume you mean something derived from both. True, unless the licenses are compatible (eg LGPL can become GPL, I think BSD can become GPL but I'd have to check).
This is why Fedora /never/ distributes with MP3 libraries or applications. You have to get them separately from another repository, if you want to play something in that format. And I assume that most people here would advise you never to /rip/ to MP3, but rather stick to Ogg-Vorbis or other GPL sound format.
In fact lame is LGPL; the mp3 thing is a patent issue, which is a completely different kettle of fish. Ogg/Vorbis is not a "GPL" format" (actually the reference implementation is mostly BSD licensed), it is an "unecumbered" format, which means there are no patents covering it and you are free to create your own implentation based on the spec using whatever licence you wish.
-- imalone
Temlakos wrote:
Ok, I have to admit, I have not been playing close attention to this discussion, but what I have seen has raised a question for me. I would like a clarification. Do I, as an end user have the right to install non-GPL software (e.g. RealPlayer) on my Linux box if it links
The question got me interested in what Real Player does hook up to, so I wrote a small recursive script to spider dependent library licenses, and their dependencies. It is only as accurate as the license given in the RPM though...
$ lider /usr/local/RealPlayer/realplay.bin RealPlayer-10.0.5.756 RPSL, EULA Dependent Licenses ------------------ BSD BSD/GPL dual license GPL LGPL MIT MIT/X11, and others
Dependent Packages ------------------ atk-1.9.1 LGPL compat-libstdc++-33-3.2.3 GPL expat-1.95.8 BSD fontconfig-2.2.3 MIT freetype-2.1.9 BSD/GPL dual license glib2-2.6.6 LGPL glibc-2.3.5 LGPL gtk2-2.6.10 LGPL libgcc-4.0.2 GPL pango-1.8.1 LGPL xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2 MIT/X11, and others zlib-1.2.2.2 BSD
Dependent libs -------------- /lib/libc.so.6 glibc-2.3.5 LGPL /lib/libdl.so.2 glibc-2.3.5 LGPL /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc-4.0.2 GPL /lib/libm.so.6 glibc-2.3.5 LGPL /lib/libpthread.so.0 glibc-2.3.5 LGPL /usr/lib/libatk-1.0.so.0 atk-1.9.1 LGPL /usr/lib/libexpat.so.0 expat-1.95.8 BSD /usr/lib/libfontconfig.so.1 fontconfig-2.2.3 MIT /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6 freetype-2.1.9 BSD/GPL dual license /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 gtk2-2.6.10 LGPL /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 gtk2-2.6.10 LGPL /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 glib2-2.6.6 LGPL /usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 glib2-2.6.6 LGPL /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 glib2-2.6.6 LGPL /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 gtk2-2.6.10 LGPL /usr/lib/libpango-1.0.so.0 pango-1.8.1 LGPL /usr/lib/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 pango-1.8.1 LGPL /usr/lib/libpangox-1.0.so.0 pango-1.8.1 LGPL /usr/lib/libpangoxft-1.0.so.0 pango-1.8.1 LGPL /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 compat-libstdc++-33-3.2.3 GPL /usr/lib/libz.so.1 zlib-1.2.2.2 BSD /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2 MIT/X11, and others /usr/X11R6/lib/libXcursor.so.1 xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2 MIT/X11, and others /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2 MIT/X11, and others /usr/X11R6/lib/libXfixes.so.3 xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2 MIT/X11, and others /usr/X11R6/lib/libXft.so.2 xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2 MIT/X11, and others /usr/X11R6/lib/libXinerama.so.1 xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2 MIT/X11, and others /usr/X11R6/lib/libXi.so.6 xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2 MIT/X11, and others /usr/X11R6/lib/libXrandr.so.2 xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2 MIT/X11, and others /usr/X11R6/lib/libXrender.so.1 xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2 MIT/X11, and others
I believe that despite what the packages say, the actual libraries used in libgcc and compat-libstdc++ are LGPL, so this does not show a problem AFAIK.
I had always thought that you /are/ permitted to install non-GPL software on your own box, even if it links to GPL software. Indeed, the
...
But you may not /distribute/ a GPL/non-GPL package.
Yes, you can do what you like with GPL stuff, link proprietary code to real GPL libraries, add proprietary code to GPL code, whatever: so long as you will not 'distribute' the result. The GPL only seeks to control the terms of distribution, otherwise do what you want. For example you could "extend and embrace" GPL code to form a website AIUI and keep that proprietary.
AIUI the general rules for distribution and proprietaryness are:
- your proprietary app + proprietary libs : pay to license the libs and binary-only is fine
- your proprietary app + BSD or similar, or PD : binary-only is fine, you need to include some copyright notices in the binary with BSD
- your proprietary app + LGPL'd libs : binary-only is fine, but if you ship the libs you need to provide sources for them, including any mods to them
- your proprietary app + GPL'd libs : *GPL ERROR*, you must GPL your app or find an alternate LGPL or BSD or PD or Proprietary alternative library to link to
Things get complicated with mixing GPL code and other licenses as somebody else said, because the GPL insists there can be no extra conditions applied to it. It's out of my experience how that pans out with compiling GPL code with, say, Openssl libs
http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html
This is why Fedora /never/ distributes with MP3 libraries or
Well the logic for the MP3 ban is to do with patents as somebody else pointed out, it's not directly connected to the GPL.
-Andy
#!/bin/bash
# # Lider License Spider # # Andy Green andy@warmcat.com # License: Public Domain #
if [ -z "$1" -o "$1" = "--help" ] ; then echo "Usage: $0 <path to executable file>" exit 1 fi
depth=$2
if [ -z "$depth" ] ; then depth=1 rm -f /tmp/lider-list touch /tmp/lider-list
pkg=`rpm -q --whatprovides $1` if [ ! -z "$pkg" ] ; then rpm -q --queryformat "%{NAME}-%{VERSION} %{LICENSE}" $pkg else echo "($1 is unpackaged)" fi echo fi
#echo Depth $depth
LIST1=`ldd $1 | tr -s ' ' | cut -d' ' -f 3 | grep ^/` for i in $LIST1 ; do package=`rpm -q --whatprovides $i` if [ -z "`grep $i /tmp/lider-list`" ] ; then echo -n "$i " >>/tmp/lider-list rpm -q --queryformat "%{NAME}-%{VERSION} %{LICENSE} \n" $package | head -n1 >>/tmp/lider-list $0 $i $(( $depth + 1 )) fi done
if [ "$depth" -eq 1 ] ; then echo "Dependent Licenses" echo "------------------" cat /tmp/lider-list | sort | uniq | cut -d' ' -f3- | sort | uniq echo echo "Dependent Packages" echo "------------------" cat /tmp/lider-list | sort | uniq | cut -d' ' -f2- | sort | uniq echo echo "Dependent libs" echo "--------------" cat /tmp/lider-list | sort | uniq
rm -f /tmp/lider-list fi
Andy Green wrote:
[snip list]
I believe that despite what the packages say, the actual libraries used in libgcc and compat-libstdc++ are LGPL, so this does not show a problem AFAIK.
According to LGPL, they must provide their own stuff in a form suitable for reverse engineering and modification for the customer's own use. AFAICT, the only real distinction between GPL and LGPL is that the producer of a program with proprietary stuff in it who links with LGPL stuff doesn't have to allow the customer to reveal the content of the proprietary stuff, but still must reveal it to the customer. The GPL requires the producer not to have proprietary stuff, it must all be redistributable. If the proprietary stuff has trade secrets in it, then LGPL would be its death.
Yes, you can do what you like with GPL stuff, link proprietary code to real GPL libraries, add proprietary code to GPL code, whatever: so long as you will not 'distribute' the result. The GPL only seeks to control the terms of distribution, otherwise do what you want. For example you could "extend and embrace" GPL code to form a website AIUI and keep that proprietary.
AIUI the general rules for distribution and proprietaryness are:
- your proprietary app + proprietary libs : pay to license the libs and
binary-only is fine
- your proprietary app + BSD or similar, or PD : binary-only is fine,
you need to include some copyright notices in the binary with BSD
- your proprietary app + LGPL'd libs : binary-only is fine, but if you
ship the libs you need to provide sources for them, including any mods to them
You have to provide the proprietary part in a form suitable for reverse engineering and modification by the customer for his own use. This is, of course, presuming that courts will uphold sections 5 and 6 of the LGPL as written, and if they mean what they seem to mean.
- your proprietary app + GPL'd libs : *GPL ERROR*, you must GPL your
app or find an alternate LGPL or BSD or PD or Proprietary alternative library to link to
[snip]
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
I believe that despite what the packages say, the actual libraries used in libgcc and compat-libstdc++ are LGPL, so this does not show a problem AFAIK.
According to LGPL, they must provide their own stuff in a form suitable for reverse engineering and modification for the customer's own use. AFAICT, the only real distinction between GPL and LGPL is that the
We did this last month:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-January/msg02996.html
-Andy
Andy Green wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I believe that despite what the packages say, the actual libraries used in libgcc and compat-libstdc++ are LGPL, so this does not show a problem AFAIK.
According to LGPL, they must provide their own stuff in a form suitable for reverse engineering and modification for the customer's own use. AFAICT, the only real distinction between GPL and LGPL is that the
We did this last month:
If you don't want to discuss it, then why did you bring it up again?
Mike
Andy Green wrote:
This is cute. However...
[snip]
if [ ! -z "$pkg" ] ; then rpm -q --queryformat "%{NAME}-%{VERSION} %{LICENSE}" $pkg else echo "($1 is unpackaged)" fi echo fi
#echo Depth $depth
LIST1=`ldd $1 | tr -s ' ' | cut -d' ' -f 3 | grep ^/` for i in $LIST1 ; do package=`rpm -q --whatprovides $i` if [ -z "`grep $i /tmp/lider-list`" ] ; then echo -n "$i " >>/tmp/lider-list rpm -q --queryformat "%{NAME}-%{VERSION} %{LICENSE} \n" $package | head -n1 >>/tmp/lider-list $0 $i $(( $depth + 1 )) fi done
[snip]
You have a defect hiding in there. When I run it on a little program or two I wrote in C, I get this output...
$ lider bin/keys package no is not installed package package is not installed package provides is not installed package bin/keys is not installed
Dependent Licenses ------------------ LGPL
Dependent Packages ------------------ glibc-2.3.3 LGPL
Dependent libs -------------- /lib/ld-linux.so.2 glibc-2.3.3 LGPL /lib/tls/libc.so.6 glibc-2.3.3 LGPL
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
Andy Green wrote:
This is cute. However...
You have a defect hiding in there. When I run it on a little program or two I wrote in C, I get this output...
$ lider bin/keys package no is not installed package package is not installed package provides is not installed package bin/keys is not installed
It's just some noise from not detecting that it was unpackaged properly, the results should be correct regardless. To fix change
if [ ! -z "$pkg" ] ; then
to
if [ -z "`echo $pkg | grep not\ owned`" ] ; then
-Andy
Andy Green wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Andy Green wrote:
This is cute. However...
You have a defect hiding in there. When I run it on a little program or two I wrote in C, I get this output...
$ lider bin/keys package no is not installed package package is not installed package provides is not installed package bin/keys is not installed
It's just some noise from not detecting that it was unpackaged properly, the results should be correct regardless. To fix change
if [ ! -z "$pkg" ] ; then
to
if [ -z "`echo $pkg | grep not\ owned`" ] ; then
I'm not familiar with that form for grep. Do you mean
grep -v owned
?
Anyway, this still has a defect. If there is a package with the string "owned" in its name, and it is the only dependency, then this fails. See my other message for a better solution.
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
if [ -z "`echo $pkg | grep not\ owned`" ] ; then
I'm not familiar with that form for grep. Do you mean
grep -v owned
Nope.
Anyway, this still has a defect. If there is a package with the string "owned" in its name, and it is the only dependency, then this fails. See my other message for a better solution.
Well, thanks for that ;-)
-Andy
Andy Green wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
if [ -z "`echo $pkg | grep not\ owned`" ] ; then
I'm not familiar with that form for grep. Do you mean
grep -v owned
Nope.
Oh, of course, you were escaping the space. But isn't this still defective? If "not owned" is present, then grep finds it, and the test fails, doesn't it? Don't you still need
grep -v not\ owned
?
Anyway, this still has a defect. If there is a package with the string "owned" in its name, and it is the only dependency, then this fails. See my other message for a better solution.
Well, thanks for that ;-)
You're welcome. It is a better solution, IMO. If the "not owned" string gets changed by the maintainers of rpm, then you'll have to track that. The "--quiet" is unlikely to change, I think, and results in less coupling.
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
if [ -z "`echo $pkg | grep not\ owned`" ] ; then
I'm not familiar with that form for grep. Do you mean
grep -v owned
Nope.
Oh, of course, you were escaping the space. But isn't this
...
grep -v not\ owned
Nope.
You're welcome. It is a better solution, IMO. If the "not owned" string gets changed by the maintainers of rpm, then you'll have to track that. The "--quiet" is unlikely to change, I think, and results in less coupling.
Well it's the great thing about Free software, you can have your version how you like.
-Andy
Andy Green wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Oh, of course, you were escaping the space. But isn't this
...
grep -v not\ owned
Nope.
You seem to be deliberately obtuse.
You're welcome. It is a better solution, IMO. If the "not owned" string gets changed by the maintainers of rpm, then you'll have to track that. The "--quiet" is unlikely to change, I think, and results in less coupling.
Well it's the great thing about Free software, you can have your version how you like.
Yep, because now its public domain, hence owned by everyone. Fortunately, you didn't GPL it. :-)
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
Oh, of course, you were escaping the space. But isn't this
...
grep -v not\ owned
Nope.
You seem to be deliberately obtuse.
You don't seem to understand what -z tests for.
Well it's the great thing about Free software, you can have your version how you like.
Yep, because now its public domain, hence owned by everyone. Fortunately, you didn't GPL it. :-)
It seemed pompous to GPL something so trivial.
-Andy
Andy Green wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Oh, of course, you were escaping the space. But isn't this
...
grep -v not\ owned
Nope.
You seem to be deliberately obtuse.
You don't seem to understand what -z tests for.
IIRC, it tests for the length of a string being zero.
Yep, because now its public domain, hence owned by everyone. Fortunately, you didn't GPL it. :-)
It seemed pompous to GPL something so trivial.
I'm tempted to respond, but I'll restrain myself.
:-)
Mmike
Yep, because now its public domain
Did he assign it to the public domain? If not, he has copyright on it. (Even something as trivial as that.) Unless, I suppose, he was copying somebody else's work and that person had put it in the public domain.
Of course, fair use would pretty much cover almost any use a person could make of something that short, unless he were to patent it. (I am not saying he should, of course.)
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 17:41 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
if [ -z "`echo $pkg | grep not\ owned`" ] ; then
I'm not familiar with that form for grep. Do you mean
grep -v owned
Nope.
Oh, of course, you were escaping the space. But isn't this
...
grep -v not\ owned
Nope.
Mike He meant exactly what was said. grep -v not\ owned means exactly the same as grep -v "not owned"
I took that to mean what it says at face value.
You're welcome. It is a better solution, IMO. If the "not owned" string gets changed by the maintainers of rpm, then you'll have to track that. The "--quiet" is unlikely to change, I think, and results in less coupling.
Well it's the great thing about Free software, you can have your version how you like.
-Andy
fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Jeff Vian wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 17:41 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
if [ -z "`echo $pkg | grep not\ owned`" ] ; then
I'm not familiar with that form for grep. Do you mean
grep -v owned
Nope.
Oh, of course, you were escaping the space. But isn't this
...
grep -v not\ owned
Nope.
Mike He meant exactly what was said. grep -v not\ owned means exactly the same as grep -v "not owned"
But both of those are what I wrote, not what he wrote.
Mike
Andy Green wrote:
pkg=`rpm -q --whatprovides $1`
You need
pkg=`rpm -q --quiet --whatprovides $1`
[rest snipped]
Mike
Don Bedsole wrote:
Hi,
Ok, taking the LGPL and GPL at face value, with what seems to be their intended interpretations, and presuming that the courts would actually enforce what they seem to say, and AIUI...
Ok, I have to admit, I have not been playing close attention to this discussion, but what I have seen has raised a question for me. I would like a clarification. Do I, as an end user have the right to install non-GPL software (e.g. RealPlayer) on my Linux box if it links to GPL software? Can
Yes. AFAICT, no restriction is placed on the receiver of bootleg applications by either GPL or LGPL. OTOH, IANAL, and there may be *other* precedent which applies to such recipients.
I install non-GPL software which links to anything it wants to on my computer?
With all caveats, yes. But remember, someone who knowingly receives stolen goods is known as a "fence" and commits an offence. I do not know what collateral effects there may be. But AFAICT, neither LGPL nor GPL prohibit that.
Is it legal for non-GPL software distributors (RealPlayer, et. al) to furnish software to me which links to GPL software? Wouldn't it only be a
NO. This is precisely what is prohibited by GPL, and as I read it, also by LGPL.
problem if I were to somehow redistribute the non-GPL--GPL software combination? In other words, can non-GPL distributors (again RealPlayer for example), give me whatever software they want to, which links to whatever it wants to, as long as I, the end-user, do not distribute the resulting GPL-non--GPL combination? Thank you.
No, they cannot. This is precisely what the GPL, and AIUI the LGPL prohibit.
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
With all caveats, yes. But remember, someone who knowingly receives stolen goods is known as a "fence" and commits an offence. I do not know what collateral effects there may be. But AFAICT, neither LGPL nor GPL prohibit that.
IANAL [...but that hasn't stopped anyone else... :-) ]
Someone who receives stolen goods may be charged with aiding and abetting or as an accessory to robbery/burglary, etc. but a fence is a person who "traffics" in stolen goods. Their intent is to receive and resell the stolen property for profit.
Ref: http://www.answers.com/topic/fence
--R ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /I got Freedom,...I got freedom in my code (FC3/FC4)/ Registered Unix http://counter.li.org user #409453
Richard England wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
With all caveats, yes. But remember, someone who knowingly receives stolen goods is known as a "fence" and commits an offence. I do not know what collateral effects there may be. But AFAICT, neither LGPL nor GPL prohibit that.
IANAL [...but that hasn't stopped anyone else... :-) ]
It sure hasn't!
:-)
I stand (or rather sit) corrected.
Mike
On 2006.2.21, at 04:20 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
Don Bedsole wrote:
Hi,
Ok, taking the LGPL and GPL at face value,
... or not, as the case may be, ...
with what seems to be their intended interpretations, and presuming that the courts would actually enforce what they seem to say, and AIUI...
Ok, I have to admit, I have not been playing close attention to this discussion, but what I have seen has raised a question for me. I would like a clarification. Do I, as an end user have the right to install non-GPL software (e.g. RealPlayer) on my Linux box if it links to GPL software? Can
Yes. AFAICT, no restriction is placed on the receiver of bootleg
bootleg? Do you mean to imply the GPL is a means of stealing someone else's intellectual property or something?
applications by either GPL or LGPL. OTOH, IANAL, and there may be *other* precedent which applies to such recipients.
???
I install non-GPL software which links to anything it wants to on my computer?
With all caveats, yes. But remember, someone who knowingly receives stolen goods is known as a "fence" and commits an offence. I do not know what collateral effects there may be. But AFAICT, neither LGPL nor GPL prohibit that.
fah -- more gratuitous talk of stolen goods. Maybe it is you who wants to steal someone else's hard work?
Is it legal for non-GPL software distributors (RealPlayer, et. al) to furnish software to me which links to GPL software? Wouldn't it only be a
NO. This is precisely what is prohibited by GPL, and as I read it, also by LGPL.
He did not say _linked_, he said _links_. Can you read English? If it is distributed linked to GPL-ed software and is not licensed compatibly, that would be against the implicit contract of the GPL, but not necessarily the LGPL. If it is merely possible to link, that is explicitly allowed by the GPL. See the mention in the GPL of the header files if you don't understand why that would be.
There is a gray area involving distributing both the software which can be linked and the means to automatically link them without user intervention. (And that's the fine line FreeBSD gets ever so close to.)
problem if I were to somehow redistribute the non-GPL--GPL software combination? In other words, can non-GPL distributors (again RealPlayer for example), give me whatever software they want to, which links to whatever it wants to, as long as I, the end-user, do not distribute the resulting GPL-non--GPL combination? Thank you.
No, they cannot. This is precisely what the GPL, and AIUI the LGPL prohibit.
And once again I must point out that your opinion is in direct contradiction with mine, unless you know of specific things which, say, RealPlayer is distributed pre-linked against, or, I suppose, if you know that RealPlayer is using some automatic linking mechanism that goes beyond the Linux link editor.
I hope you are over the sinus and the fevers, but if you've got the time to be posting such opinions, get the time to read up on copyright until you understand that software which is written to an API is not publishing either the API or the library which implements it.
Joel Rees wrote:
On 2006.2.21, at 04:20 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
Don Bedsole wrote:
Hi,
Ok, taking the LGPL and GPL at face value,
... or not, as the case may be, ...
with what seems to be their intended interpretations, and presuming that the courts would actually enforce what they seem to say, and AIUI...
Ok, I have to admit, I have not been playing close attention to this discussion, but what I have seen has raised a question for me. I would like a clarification. Do I, as an end user have the right to install non-GPL software (e.g. RealPlayer) on my Linux box if it links to GPL software? Can
Yes. AFAICT, no restriction is placed on the receiver of bootleg
bootleg? Do you mean to imply the GPL is a means of stealing someone else's intellectual property or something?
No, not at all. I was using a figure of speech. I meant only "bootleg from the point of view of the GPL". IOW, if I wrote a program which I kept as secret as possible, and linked with GPL code, and then distributed, then that would be "bootleg" so to speak.
applications by either GPL or LGPL. OTOH, IANAL, and there may be *other* precedent which applies to such recipients.
???
Well, IANAL. It may be that receiving a program which contains GPL stuff, and *also* contains proprietary stuff, and using it in some way makes one an accessory or something. I'm just trying not to say "Yes, you can do that. There's no problem." when there may be due to some court case or other I have no knowledge of.
I install non-GPL software which links to anything it wants to on my computer?
With all caveats, yes. But remember, someone who knowingly receives stolen goods is known as a "fence" and commits an offence. I do not know what collateral effects there may be. But AFAICT, neither LGPL nor GPL prohibit that.
fah -- more gratuitous talk of stolen goods. Maybe it is you who wants to steal someone else's hard work?
No, I'm talking about stuff which is GPL being hijacked into proprietary stuff.
Do you have some sort of grudge against me or something? You seem to be trying to misread what I write.
Is it legal for non-GPL software distributors (RealPlayer, et. al)
to furnish software to me which links to GPL software? Wouldn't it only be a
NO. This is precisely what is prohibited by GPL, and as I read it, also by LGPL.
He did not say _linked_, he said _links_. Can you read English? If it is
Certainly, started speaking English at the age of 3 or so, right after Spanish.
distributed linked to GPL-ed software and is not licensed compatibly, that would be against the implicit contract of the GPL, but not necessarily the LGPL. If it is merely possible to link, that is explicitly allowed by the GPL. See the mention in the GPL of the header files if you don't understand why that would be.
Well, you can take whatever position you like, and I don't want to argue. I will say this: What you just said is contrary to what Richard Stallman says is the intent of the LGPL. His position is that if you include the header file, that is enough to invoke section 6 requiring disclosure.
There is a gray area involving distributing both the software which can be linked and the means to automatically link them without user intervention. (And that's the fine line FreeBSD gets ever so close to.)
I think the whole thing is murky. In particular, the theory espoused in the LGPL that if you link to an LGPL library, then the executable becomes a derived work, etc. is on uncertain and AFAIK untested legal grounds.
problem if I were to somehow redistribute the non-GPL--GPL software combination? In other words, can non-GPL distributors (again RealPlayer for example), give me whatever software they want to, which links to whatever it wants to, as long as I, the end-user, do not distribute the resulting GPL-non--GPL combination? Thank you.
No, they cannot. This is precisely what the GPL, and AIUI the LGPL prohibit.
And once again I must point out that your opinion is in direct contradiction with mine, unless you know of specific things which, say,
Well, again, I don't want to argue. I'll just point out that the plain language of the LGPL and the direct statement of Richard Stallman disagree with your opinion.
RealPlayer is distributed pre-linked against, or, I suppose, if you know that RealPlayer is using some automatic linking mechanism that goes beyond the Linux link editor.
I hope you are over the sinus and the fevers, but if you've got the time
Thank you for those kind words. I'm taking Amoxicillin now, and the fever has abated. Still got a bad cough, though.
to be posting such opinions, get the time to read up on copyright until you understand that software which is written to an API is not publishing either the API or the library which implements it.
The purpose of the LGPL is to allow one to modify the behavior of programs which use the LGPLd library. Any program which eventually gets connected to the LGPLd library must be provided in a form which permits the customer to reverse engineer it, and modify it for his own use, but not necessarily for redistribution. That's the plain wording of the LGPL, and it's the plain statement of Richard Stallman that simply including the header is enough to invoke those sections.
Mike
On 2006.2.22, at 12:36 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
and it's the plain statement of Richard Stallman that simply including the header is enough to invoke those sections.
But you can write your own header. Header files which are compatible with other header files have been held up in court as being within the domain of fair use. (May require some care.)
glib is one example of how that works.
Joel Rees wrote:
On 2006.2.22, at 12:36 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
and it's the plain statement of Richard Stallman that simply including the header is enough to invoke those sections.
But you can write your own header. Header files which are compatible
Certainly. Or even just put prototypes in line. Or just live without prototypes and put casts where needed. Not good coding practice.
with other header files have been held up in court as being within the domain of fair use. (May require some care.)
Eh, care to give a cite?
glib is one example of how that works.
If you mean the GTK glib, then it LGPL, and as the website states, it is usable for development of proprietary software under those terms without license fee or royalty.
Mike
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 09:45 -0500, Don Bedsole wrote:
Hi, Ok, I have to admit, I have not been playing close attention to this discussion, but what I have seen has raised a question for me. I would like a clarification. Do I, as an end user have the right to install non-GPL software (e.g. RealPlayer) on my Linux box if it links to GPL software? Can I install non-GPL software which links to anything it wants to on my computer? Is it legal for non-GPL software distributors (RealPlayer, et. al) to furnish software to me which links to GPL software? Wouldn't it only be a problem if I were to somehow redistribute the non-GPL--GPL software combination? In other words, can non-GPL distributors (again RealPlayer for example), give me whatever software they want to, which links to whatever it wants to, as long as I, the end-user, do not distribute the resulting GPL-non--GPL combination? Thank you.
AIUI, yes. Distribution is one of the key things in the licensing. You can take GPL software and use it / modify it / add to it in any way you like.
Distribution is another ballgame.
-
Andy Green -
Don Bedsole -
Ian Malone -
Jeff Vian -
Joel Rees -
Mike McCarty -
Richard England -
Temlakos