RE: Roaring Penguin's view

Am Don, 2002-06-13 um 10.51 schrieb Roger Fujii:

> > If I develop import/export filter using the API (or ABI),
> > am I "deriving a product from" the GPL:ed work or am I
> > "developing a product for" the GPL:ed work?
> 
> Well according to FSF, you would be "deriving from", as they *claim* that
> you cannot write a GPLed plugin for a propriatary program (if it's not
> fork/execed).
>     http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
> 
> This is not to say I think this has any legal merit - just that FSF
> does make this claim.

My personal interpretation of the GPL is that when an OS task has code
from a GPL'd software in the executable section of its memory map, all
executable code in that task's memory map that calls functions in the
GPL'd section forms a derivative work and must thus be GPL'd.

This interpretation makes technically clear why dynamic linking and
plugins lead to derivative works and IPC and socket communication don't.
I know too little about COM to tell what my interpretation would mean
for that.

I don't know if RMS would consider this definition correct, nor if it
would stand in court.

> > Even if that should come true, it is far from certain that he license change
> > would happen. In any case, this is the far future, and none of us has
> > the slightest idea how the IT world will look like even 5 years from
> > now. The whole question may be totally irrelevant by then.
> 
> I think the point is that the odds are not zero, nor are the odds insignificant.

I think other dangers (software patents, the SSSCA) threaten our freedom
much more than this.
 
> > Moreover, despite RMS's attempt to make more libraries GPL'd, most
> > library authors seem to prefer LGPL.
> 
> That's because (according to FSF) no non-GPLed programs could use such
> a library.  Most library writes do like to have their code called.

Exactly. That's what I wanted to say: Most library writers don't seem to
subscribe to RMS's point of view.
 
> > I see no reason why this should change, especially in a situation where
> > even the LGPL seems to offend so many people.
> 
> This can happen if any or the core libraries (most obvious one is glibc) convert
> as most libraries end up calling something in glibc somewhere.

> I'll agree with Deven on this.  I this this is unlikely and a fork would
> be more likely the result.  Would be a really bloody scene though - will make
> the wine LGPL conversion look mild by comparison....

Yes. And that is why it won't happen. Vendors like RedHat would stop
supporting the FSF, because they need to be able to run Oracle etc.
All those community members like you and Deven whose primary concern
appears to be that commercially software can be built upon free software
would be outrageous. The "open source / free software" community,
diverse as it is now, will almost certainly split into at least two
camps fighting against each other, very much to their commercial
competitor's amusement. Think about the FSF and Stallman what you wish,
but they have made a lot of practical decisions in the past - they are
not crazy, and they certainly won't risk a disaster like that.

Martin

-- 
Martin Wilck                Phone: +49 5251 8 15113
Fujitsu Siemens Computers   Fax:   +49 5251 8 20409
Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1	    mailto:[email protected]
D-33106 Paderborn           http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/primergy