Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Jul 1998 15:08:40 -0700 | From | Tim Smith <> | Subject | Re: Linus Speaks About KDE-Bashing [license theory] |
| |
At 01:34 PM 7/12/98 -0700, Jon M. Taylor wrote: >I still don't understand why what ANYONE says means ANYTHING. >Isn't the only relevant thing here the text of the GPL?
[Note: I've stuck the tag [license theory] to the subject line, to make it easier for people to filter out this thread, because it has nothing to do anymore with most of these lists. It's really getting to the point where gnu.misc.discuss is the place for it]
No, it's the *second* relevant thing. The first question which must be asked in any situation in which you want to mix code under one license with code under another license is which licenses actually apply.
For example, suppose there was some program with a publicly documented plug-in interface. Suppose I were to write a plug-in for that program. My plug-in would not be considered to be a derivative work of the program under copyright law in most of the world, and so my plug-in is not violating the copyright of that program, and so I don't need the permission of the copyright holder, and so I don't care what their license says[1].
Quite a few arguments on the net over how GPL (or other licenses) apply to specific hypothetical situations are actually moot, but almost no one stops to take this first step of determining if there is any need to check the license.
--Tim Smith
[1] This is not strictly true. If the license forbids the end-used from using plug-ins not approved by the program copyright holder (and assuming that there are no antitrust problems there!), then my providing an unauthorized plug-in might make me liable under the doctrine of "contributory infringement". The basic idea is that if someone does something that infringes copyright, then the person who enabled them to do that can also be held liable for the infringement. There are at least two conditions that need to be met for contributory infringement to be possible. (1) What the end-user does has to infringe the copyright, and not be authorized by the end-user's license. (2) The thing the alleged contributory infringer provides has to have no substantial non-infringing use.
In cases involving GPL, contributory infringement is unlikely to be found, because of the first factor listed above. FSF and RMS, and pretty much everyone else, agrees that GPL allows an end-user to do whatever they want for their own use, including mixing, by linking or at the source level, with proprietary code. It is only when the end-user wants to distribute the result that they have to worry about GPL.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |