Re: GPL and economics

"Deven T. Corzine" wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Roger Fujii wrote:

> > 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

It *IS* according to the FSF.

> unless you statically link the GPL'd code

GPL makes *no* distinction whether it is statically linked or not.  The only
"exception" is you can link with things that are normally part of the OS/environment
(whatever that means).  

> 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.

FSF does, nevertheless.
 
> 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.

Not if it is dynamically linked.  Even then, FSF claims there is derivation.
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL

I think we both agree on what reasonable derivative claims are.  Unfortunately,
the FSF claims way more than that.

-r