www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Diephouse <...@envoisolutions.com>
Subject Re: ASL Only Distribution Policy [was Apache's LGPL Policy]
Date Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:20:51 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> --On August 4, 2005 9:52:22 AM -0400 Jeffrey Thompson 
> <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's where I lose the reasoning.  If I understand the FSF 
>> correctly, if I
>> write a program that is designed to be linked to a GPL program, it is a
>> derivative work of that GPL program whether or not I actually do the 
>> linking
>> before I distribute my program.  So, if my licensee dynamically or
>> statically links the GPL program to mine as part of the normal use of 
>> the
>> program, I have obligations under the GPL.  Is that still the FSF 
>> position?
>>
>> If so, then the only way that I can see that happening is the 
>> information
>> that I used on the interfaces to the GPL program is the "work" that I 
>> made a
>> derivative of, apparently even if it is a published interface 
>> independent of
>> the GPL program at issue.  That seems strange to me, but taken at face
>> value, and applying that to this use case, wouldn't any program 
>> written to
>> subclass the LGPL java classes also be a derivative work?  So, the 
>> phrase
>> "This is obviously the case for a Program that contains nothing 
>> derivative
>> of any portion of the Library" describes a null set (accepting the FSF
>> position on derivatives).
>
>
> In order to ensure that I understand you correctly, let me try to 
> rephrase your statements:
>
> The FSF has previously stated that 'using a library' in a GPLd work 
> (but not specifically LGPL) creates a derivative work that must be 
> covered by the GPL. But, this apparently differs from what the FSF 
> seems to agree on for a LGPL-licensed project in Cliff's use cases.  
> However, the definition of a derivative work should not differ 
> depending upon the license.  Since the GPL is the FSF's principal 
> license, it's possible that the FSF might backtrack from their 
> position once they realize the implications of this position for the 
> GPLd code (i.e. that using it this way does not create a derivative 
> work; hence 'falls outside the scope of this license').
>
> Is this a fair restatement?

I think its ok that the derivitive definition varies between licenses. 
Thats why we define things. In case of the LPGL we know a program is not 
a derivitive when:

""A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, 
but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked 
with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in 
isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls 
outside the scope of this License.""

But in the GPL derivitive is:
"A "work based on the Library" means either the Library or any 
derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing 
the Library or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications 
and/or translated straightforwardly into another language."

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure they're completely different definitions. So 
yes, if you try to combine the two it doesn't work, but they are meant 
to be looked at individually. So is the GPL really relavent to this 
discussion?

>> Obviously, I'm missing something in the FSF's reasoning.  Their 
>> opinion on
>> the use case is the right answer in my view, but I just don't see how 
>> they
>> get there.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>> <DISCLAIMER>   I'm not trying to start a religious war, just trying to
>> understand some of the more detailed nuances of the FSF position.
>> </DISCLAIMER>
>
>
> Nope, I understand that.  This is why we want discussion on this.
>
> Thanks!  -- justin
>
Hooray for firendly discussions! :-)

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message