RE: Roaring Penguin's view

> Patrik Stridvall <[email protected]> wrote:
> > However note that regardless of what the
> > GPL say copyright law is unlikely to let the GPL push the
> > issue too far. Even the FSF recognize this.
> 
> This is the annoying thing.  Even though they know this, they
> use FUD to accomplish their aims.
> 
> > Lets say that a GPL:ed Wordprocessor or whatever have a lot of
> > import/export filters. Now in order to bring order to chaos an
> > import/export filter API is defined with some dynamic loadning
> > mechnism in order to facillitate debugging or whatever.
> > 
> > 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

Yes, I know. It was primarily a retorical question,
to introduce the real question.
 
> This is not to say I think this has any legal merit - just that FSF
> does make this claim.

Indeed.
  
> > Regardless of the case above:
> > Can you give any resonable definition of "derive a product from"
> > and "develop a product for" have clear and unambiguous 
> meaning in the
> > general case.
> 
> you could probably come up with a "fair" definition, like MPL, but you
> would have to use a word like "substantial" somewhere.  Of course, you
> can always say that "develop a product for" means it did not 
> use any non-header
> source files.  

Yes, but then you would have to make a difference
between runtime and linktime (compiletime).

> In any case, such a definition would be pretty 
> much non-viral.

Probably and that is the point.

If I made some sort of study asking "normal" people
(read: people competent to understand the question)
about the extent of copyright. I'm pretty sure that
most people would agree that "develop a product for"
and sell it without the original copyright holder
permission would be OK but to "derive a product from"
would not be.

So the big question is "normal" peoples view of what
is allowed or not compatible with the GPL?