RE: Roaring Penguin's view

On 12 Jun 2002, Martin Wilck wrote:

> Am Mit, 2002-06-12 um 17.14 schrieb Deven T. Corzine:
> 
> > The boundary isn't that clear, even in the FSF's interpretation.  Writing 
> > an application to an API that's unique to GPL'd code is a "derived work" in 
> > their minds.  So is using separate programs and interposing IPC mechanisms, 
> > if they believe you're doing it for the purpose of circumventing the GPL.
> 
> Where did you pick that up? I have never heard that the purpose of a
> program had anything to do with licensing issues. They might condemn you
> morally if you try to circumvent the GPL, but I cannot imagine they'd
> sue you.

Don't be too sure.  The FSF has made statements in the past about various
situations to which they believe the GPL applies, that an objective person
is likely to believe it's not a "derived work".  I suspect the FSF's notion
of "derived work" is more broad than that of an average person's, and more 
broad than the legal definition, probably.  No, I can't remember where and 
when I read such statements; some would be over a decade old.  I don't have 
any concrete reference handy, but I'm not alone in noticing it:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Jul.10.14.07.49.1993.19866%40geneva.rutgers.edu

The FSF very well might sue you (or at least threaten to) if they think the 
GPL could apply to your "derived" work.  They might not win in court, but I 
wouldn't put it past them to try, or pretend they will...

> > And when you move from simpler forms of cooperating code, like linking to a 
> > library, to more complex forms like COM objects and Web Services, the line 
> > gets quite fuzzy indeed.
> 
> Well, the GPL may be technologically behind in this respect, as is most
> legal stuff when it comes to recent IT developments. I expect the next
> version of the GPL to be more clear about these issues.

I'm sure it will be.  That'll probably be a major focus of GPLv3.  It will 
still remain a fuzzy area in terms of "derivation", though they may have a 
stronger case under contract law if it's written into the GPL.

> > Not necessarily, but it's pretty common for libraries to be licensed in 
> > such a way that binaries can be linked together and distributed on a 
> > royalty-free basis.  That's just industry custom, driven by market demand.  
> 
> And it is community custom to make most libraries LGPL or even less
> restrictive.

Yes, a custom Stallman has objected to (to the point of renaming the LGPL) 
and is trying to reverse.

> > Unlikely.  It's far more likely that someone (or many) would simply 
> > maintain the LGPL branch indefinitely and never use the GPL version.
> 
> And it is even more likely, for the same reasons, that the switch to the
> GPL will never happen.

Stallman might force a switch for ideological reasons, no matter what the 
users want.  He always considered the LGPL a compromise.  If he feels like 
there's no longer a need to compromise, don't be surprised if he drops the 
LGPL like a hot potato.  If he comes to believe he is in a position to 
dictate terms, expect him to go GPL all the way.  (The renaming of LGPL 
might be the first stage of trying to eliminate it entirely.)

Deven