www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <Ralph.Go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: GPL licensing question ...
Date Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:49:10 GMT

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.

Getting even more paranoid, I'd argue that simply creating a bridge 
interface doesn't really help if the only thing around to implement it 
is under the GPL (i.e. the bridge to the "real" thing) . If push came to 
shove I'd imagine someone who liked to pay lawyers would argue that was 
just some fancy way to dance around the problem and the work using the 
bridge API was still a derivative. However, with multiple 
implementations I'd find it hard to believe anyone would go along with that.

Of course, maybe the FSF has relaxed their position on what a derivative 
work is since the last time I checked.  I'm well aware that many folks 
using the GPL don't even seem to agree with them.

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

View raw message