Re: GPL and economics

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Roger Fujii wrote:

> So, if I "beg, offer them large sums of money, offer to agree to any 
> condition including selling your soul if you want" to FSF so I can have a 
> propriatary version of GCC, you think they would "let me in"?

Some GPL authors would certainly agree.  Others would refuse on principle.  
The FSF would probably be in the latter camp, given Stallman's rigidity 
regarding the GPL.

> I think you misunderstand the point of the argument.  It is the vast 
> "derivative" claim that is bad.  Let's say I develop a portable C app 
> under solaris.  I take it to a linux box and link it to a GPLed C lib (as 
> an example).  Why should a GPL claim be made against this app - can you 
> honestly say that requiring my source in this case to be licensed to GPL 
> fair?

I don't think that would be fair.  Moreover, I seriously doubt it would 
constitute a "derived work" of the GPL code unless you statically link the 
GPL'd code into a binary you distribute.  After all, there's a very strong 
argument to be made that the source code of the application is SOLELY 
derivative of the Solaris system, and not one bit derived from the GPL'd 
code, which would give the GPL no leverage under copyright to make a claim.

However, if you take that source and link it with a GPL library to make a 
binary, that binary itself is clearly a derived work of your source AND the 
GPL code, even if your source itself is immune from claims of derivation.  
Distributing such a binary would trigger the GPL requirements and demand 
that the source code be licensed under the GPL, which is a trap an unwary 
author could easily fall into...

Deven