FAQ

Les Mikesell wrote:


On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
The GPL makes claims that are in conflict with the law because these claims are
not amongst what the list in the law permits and that are thus void.
The GPL is all that gives you permission to distribute. If it is
void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered
code.

Fortunately judges know better than you....


If you read the reasoning from judgements, you would know that judges just look
at the parts of the GPL that are not in conflict with the law. Judges know that
making the GPL void as a whole would be a desaster.



Both legal systems have the same results: They prevent the GPL from using it's
own interpretation os what a derivative work is and the rules from the laws
apply instead.
So apply copyright law without a license. You can't distribute. I
agree that the FSF interpretation about distributing source with the
intention that the end user does the link with other components is
pretty far off the wall, but static binaries are clearly one 'work as
a whole' and dynamic linkage is kind of fuzzy. US juries are
supposed to focus on intent and are pretty unpredictable - I wouldn't
want to take a chance on what they might decide.

Given the fact that there is not a single trustworthy lawjer in the US that
writes about the GPL and that follows your interpreation, I am relaxed.

These rules make many combinations a "collective work" that is
permitted. The cdrtools and ZFS on Linux match these rules - well, I assume
that the ZFS integration code follows the rules that are needed for a clean
collective work.
Can you point out a reference to case where this has been validated?
That is, a case where the only licence to distribute a component of
something is the GPL and distribution is permitted by a court ruling
under terms where the GPL does not apply to the 'work as a whole'?

There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar where
additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The FSF did
never try to discuss this is public even though everybody did know about the
existence. As long as the FSF does not try to sue VERITAS, we are safe -
regardless what intentional nonsense you can read on the FSF webpages.

Cdrtools follow these rules:

- No code from CDDL and GPL is mixed into a single file
How is 'a file' relevant to the composition of the translated binary
where the copyright clearly extends? And why do you have any rules
if you think the GPL doesn't pose a problem with combining components?
More to the point, why don't you eliminate any question about that
problem with a dual license on the code you control?

???


I completely follow the claims from both licenses, so there is no need to
follow your wishes.

- Non-GPL code used in a colective work was implemented independently
from the GPLd parts and form a separate work that may be used without
the GPLd code as well.
How 'you' arrange them isn't the point. Or even any individual who
builds something that isn't intended for redistribution. But for
other people to consider them generally usable as components in
redistributable projects there's not much reason to deal with the
inability to combine with other widely used components. What's the
point - and what do you have against the way perl handles it?

You are of course wrong and you ignore everything I explained you before.


If your idesyncratic GPL interpretation was true, your whole Linux distro would
be illegal. When do you withdraw your Linux distro?


J?rg


--
  EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
        joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
  URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2017 Grokbase