Re: GPL-incompatible license

Richard Stallman wrote:
[...]
> XFree86 project leaders, ...

Please consider also the following (food for thought, so to say):

Note: see the entire context (discussion threads/articles/web pages).

http://google.com/groups?selm=40241CAB.51742A6B%40web.de

----
RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. 
That is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When 
copyright law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative 
of our work, then our license for that work does not apply 
to it. Whatever our licenses say, they are operative only 
for works that are derivative of our code. 

</quote>
----

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt

----
 - Finally: I don't trust the FSF. I like the GPL a lot - although not
   necessarily as a legal piece of paper, but more as an intent. Which
   explains why, if you've looked at the Linux COPYING file, you may have
   noticed the explicit comment about "only _this_ particular version of
   the GPL covers the kernel by default".
----

http://www.oksid.ch/license/rms.html

----
Richard Stallman a écrit :
> 
>     That one ?:
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free program?
>     ...
>     If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls
>     to each other and share data
> 
>     Does it mean that all Solaris programs are copyrighted by SUN ?
> 
> Line removed
> 
> Line removed
> Line removed
> Line removed

You confirm what I'm thinking : you don't have any valid arguments.
----

http://google.com/groups?selm=4023C5D4.522B4B7F%40web.de

----
> > > > > > My Linux CD has the GPL'd kernel and the LGPL'd glibc. The glibc
> > > > > > (which is NOT under the GPL) is surely "work based on the" GPL'd
> > > > > > kernel. Please clarify this for me. TIA.
> > > > >
> > > > > "based on" is a term according to copyright law.
> > > >
> > > > Chapter and verse, please.
> > >
> > > The exact term is "derivative work",
> >
> > Are you saying that that "whole CD" [the content, I mean] and/or
> > the glibc component is NOT a "derivative work" of the GPL'd kernel
> > (IOW, the GPL does NOT cross the interface boundaries)?
> 
> The whole CD is a derivative work in the form of an agglomeration.

You can't have it both ways. It's either a derivative work or 
a compilation (collective work). Exclusive right to prepare 
derivative works (IIUC that's the foundation for "share alike")
has really nothing to do with the compilation (the term 
compilation includes collective works), AFAIK.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/legalcode

> The glibc is not a derivative work of the Linux kernel, and vice
> versa (AFAIR, the Linux kernel does not link standard libraries).  

But the glibc IS linked with the kernel. It's basically a "plug 
in" thing with respect to the kernel.

Do you agree that neither static nor dynamic linking constitues
creation of derivative work? In the case of the static linking 
the resulting "executable" is nothing but compilation. The 
object code (of the modules) is under the same copyright as 
the corresponding source code; it's just a different form of 
the the same copyrighted work).

http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise26.html
(VI.B. Source Code and Object Code)

http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html
(VI.D.4. Derivative Works and Compilations)
----

http://google.com/groups?selm=40240658.1B0A0E55%40web.de

----
Paul Jarc wrote:
[...]
> > Do you agree that neither static nor dynamic linking constitues
> > creation of derivative work?
> 
> The FSF, at least, does not agree.

I know. I've read http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html. 
The most relevant part is this, I think:

<quote>

The GPL is a very simple form of copyright license, as compared 
to other current standards in the software industry, because it 
involves no contractual obligations. Most software licenses 
begin with the exclusive rights conveyed to authors under 
copyright law, and then allow others access to the copyrighted 
work only under additional contractual conditions. The GPL, on 
the other hand, actually /subtracts/ from the author's usual 
exclusive rights under copyright law, through the granting of 
unilateral permissions. When a work of copyrighted software is 
released under the GPL, all persons everywhere observing its 
terms are unilaterally permitted all rights to use, copy, and 
modify the software. Because these permissions are unilaterally 
given, users who wish only to use the software themselves, 
making copies for their own use, or who wish only to make 
derivative works for their own use, do not have to ``accept'' 
the license, because they have no reciprocal obligations under 
it. 

If a user wishes to redistribute software she has received under 
the GPL, whether in modified or unmodified form, the license 
permits that activity as well. Here, however, the permission is 
qualified by three primary conditions: 

Redistribution must itself occur under GPL and only GPL, with 
no additional license conditions. (See Exhibit B, §2(b)); 

Redistribution must include ``source code,'' the human-readable 
form of computer programs that allows programmers to understand 
and modify computer programs for themselves, as opposed to 
``object code,'' which is the ``machine language'' version of 
computer programs that is very difficult for programmers to 
understand or modify. (See Exhibit B, §3(a)); and 

Redistribution must include a copy of the GPL, so that users 
are aware of their rights to use, copy, modify and distribute, 
and so that anyone engaged in redistribution is also aware of 
the conditions under which redistribution is permitted. (See 
Exhibit B, §1). 

As a result of these conditions on redistribution, the GPL 
achieves the goal of creating a commons. Anyone can copy and 
modify program code released under the GPL, but no one can 
combine that program code with any other code and then release 
the combination on non-GPL terms. Anyone who contributes program 
code to a GPL-based programming project knows that her 
contribution will remain freely available for others to use, fix 
and improve, but that no one will be able to exclude others from 
having the same rights. The GPL uses copyright doctrine to 
achieve the result of the principle that we should all ``share 
and share alike.'' Thus anyone who combines GPL-licensed software 
with other program code must release the combined work under GPL, 
and must provide the source code for the entire derivative work.

</quote>

And it really puzzles me. He doesn't present any argument at all
to support the assertion that such combined work is a derivative 
work (under the copyright law, not colloquially); that it is NOT 
a compilation or collective work. It's just like saying that your 
car is a derivative work of its gas pedal. Well, give me a break, 
so to say.
----

And, finally, < Forward Inline >

-------- Original Message --------
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:11:40 +0100
From: Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GPL warning label idea, has anyone thought of this before?

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 21:46:01 +0100
> Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > It doesn't need to be under the single license. For example, if "a
> > whole thing" is distributed in the source code form, then CPL'd
> > portions MUST remain under the CPL and only under the CPL.
> 
> But the part you quoted specifically dealt with a single license.
> I fail to see how you could license a single, undivisible object
> under two different licenses.

You simply state something like 

"Portions Copyright ... <license>"

"Portions Copyright ... <license>"

and make sure that your distribution of the compilation*** in the
object (binary) form complies with all those licenses/agreements.

regards,
alexander.

***) http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7649
     http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7657