www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: GPL licensing question ...
Date Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:56:31 GMT
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, wrt my reply:
>>>>
>>>> 1) We judge if that bridging/plugin API is sufficient (ie: no binding
>>>> occurs).
>>>> 2) We decide if we're happy to host the bridge to the GPL work, which
>>>> we decide if we want to release under AL 2.0 or GPL.
>>>
>>> This makes no sense to me.  Forget for a moment that many think the FSF's
>>> position on derivative works is total nonsense. Going by their position
>>> the
>>> bridge code must be licensed under the GPL and can't be Apache licensed
>>> since it is a derivative work of the project being bridged.
>>
>> Here's my reasoning here.
>>
>> If I take a GPL project, and add a new feature by inlining a piece of
>> existing Apache code, I don't magically affect the original licensing
>> of that existing Apache code, only the fact that it is now in or with
>> a larger piece of GPL'd work. Similarly, we should be able to consider
>> any changes we make as AL 2.0, or any new code as AL 2.0 in a bridge
>> library and then consider GPL as a larger licensing affecting it when
>> that new code is used. Or we dual license it under GPL/AL 2.0. Or BSD
>> if we decide we're concerned about the GPLv2 compatibility bit and
>> we're talking GPLv2.
>
> My understanding is the FSF's position is that you can take something under
> the Apache license and use it from a GPL'd work with no problems (at least
> with GPL3) but the whole work will be under the GPL. OTOH, if you take
> something under the Apache license and provide some kind of glue to the
> GPL'd work, then the GPL "infects" the Apache licensed work because it is a
> derivative work and requires the distribution as a whole to be GPL'd. The
> code under the Apache license remains only under the Apache license.
> However, if the Apache licensed code can't easily be separated from the
> GPL'd code then it might as well be under the GPL.
>
> As you referred to in your response, this is my pessimistic view. My
> optimistic view is that they are out of their minds and that no court would
> ever agree with them that simply using GPL'd code mandates that the work as
> a whole be under the GPL, especially where such use is a small part of the
> work as a whole.

Both the GPL and FSF are clear on this matter: simple 'use' of GPL
software does not require modifications to programs (even to the
original GPL software itself!) to be released in any form.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message