mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se>
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
Cc: Ramakanth Gunuganti <rgunugan@yahoo.com>,
	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL issues
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:50:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060414175018.GD23222@vasa.acc.umu.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKAEFLLFAB.davids@webmaster.com>

On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:39:59AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
> > One thing that is clear in the GPL: If you link the kernel with something
> > else to an executable, the resulting blob (and therefore the
> > sources to the
> > proprietary part) must be GPL.
> 
> 	Actually, that is *far* from clear.
> 
> 	First, the GPL cannot set its own scope. The GPL could say that
> 	if you stored a program in the same room as a GPL program, the
> 	program must be GPL.  So *nothing* the GPL says will answer this
> 	question -- the question is, can the GPL attach by linking?
> 
> 	The contrary argument would be that linking two programs
> 	together is an automated process. There is no creative input in
> 	the linking process. So it does not legally produce a single
> 	work, but a mechanical combination of the two original works.
> 
> 	The proof that the executable is not a work for copyright
> 	purposes is this simple -- could a person who took two object
> 	files out of the box and linked them together claim copyright in
> 	the new derivative work he just produced? I think the answer
> 	would be obvious -- the executable is not a new work, it's just
> 	the two original works combined.

[snip]

Ahhh, but you're missing the whole point of the GPL.  The GPL is
not really a normal license, it's a copyright license.  Basically,
copyright law doesn't allow you to do *anything* with someone elses
work without permission.  The GPL grants you such rights.
However, in exchange for this, you agree to follow the license when
redistributing your software that you built against the GPL:ed
software.

So, in essence, *if* you choose to redistribute your work, you must
abide by the GPL.  And the GPL tells you to GPL your work too, if it
falls within the scope that the GPL defines.  It thus have nothing
to do with whether the programs are a mechanical combination of
two original works or not.  The only point where this comes in is
where the GPL defines its scope.

Thus, if the GPL said that all programs distributed on the same CD
as a GPL:ed program needs to be licensed under the GPL, and you
redistribute your software on that CD, you must license your software
under the GPL, unless you want to be in violation with the license.

Again, I'm not a lawyer...


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/

  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-04-14 17:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-04-11  6:31 Ramakanth Gunuganti
2006-04-11  8:42 ` Jesper Juhl
2006-04-11 10:51   ` Martin Mares
2006-04-11 17:46   ` Horst von Brand
2006-04-11 13:49 ` Kyle Moffett
2006-04-11 15:49   ` Ramakanth Gunuganti
2006-04-11 16:07     ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-04-11 16:29       ` Stefan Smietanowski
2006-04-11 16:13     ` Adrian Bunk
2006-04-11 16:15     ` Kyle Moffett
2006-04-11 16:23     ` Dave Neuer
2006-04-11 18:58     ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-04-14 11:39       ` David Schwartz
2006-04-14 14:54         ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-04-14 17:50         ` David Weinehall [this message]
2006-04-14 18:56           ` David Schwartz
2006-04-15 11:55             ` Alan Cox
2006-04-15 13:04               ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-15 18:49               ` David Schwartz
2006-04-11 15:49   ` Ramakanth Gunuganti
2006-04-11 23:06 ` David Weinehall
2006-04-12  2:38   ` Joshua Hudson
2006-04-12  3:18     ` Mark Lord
2006-04-12  5:00       ` Kyle Moffett
2006-04-12  5:31       ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-04-12  5:45         ` jdow
2006-04-12  6:01           ` David Weinehall
2006-04-12  6:26             ` jdow
2006-04-12  9:13             ` Stefan Smietanowski
2006-04-12 11:33               ` Olivier Galibert
2006-04-12 14:51           ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-04-13 22:07             ` Mark Lord
2006-04-15 11:14               ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-04-13 22:17         ` Mark Lord
2006-04-15 11:15           ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-04-11 23:12 ` Alan Cox
2006-04-12  7:01 Pramod Srinivasan
2006-04-12  8:16 ` David Weinehall
2006-04-12  9:06 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-04-12  9:22   ` Stefan Smietanowski
2006-04-12  9:40     ` Martin Mares
2006-04-12  9:28   ` Alan Cox
2006-04-14 11:39 ` David Schwartz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20060414175018.GD23222@vasa.acc.umu.se \
    --to=tao@acc.umu.se \
    --cc=davids@webmaster.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mrmacman_g4@mac.com \
    --cc=rgunugan@yahoo.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®