Re: About GPL and proprietary software

I think the main issue in dynamic linking is whether or not you used the
GPL headers. If you did, then you are in fact combining your work with a
GPL work. If you did not, then how is one to know _which_ library you are
linking against. It could be the GPL library, but it could also be any
other library which exports the same symbols. If I link to Motif, I am
not obliging myself to the GPL just because Lesstif exists.

Jon

On 1 Sep 2003, Doug Quale wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > The FSF would _like_ dynamic linking to pass the GPL to the
> > closed-source binary, but that doesn't make it so --- I would like a lot
> > of things but wanting it to happen isn't enough.
> >
> > Their FAQ says (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html):
> >
> > What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two
> > modules into one program"?
> >
> > Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on
> > the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they
> > are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if
> > one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other
> > program.
> >
> > Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they
> > form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the
> > whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or
> > won't, do that, you may not combine them.
> >
> > What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a
> > legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec,
> > pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the
> > semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are
> > interchanged).
> >
> > You can bet that RMS, control freak that he is, wouldn't have put that
> > disclaimer in there if he felt he had much chance of making the GPL
> > dynamic linking restriction enforceable.
>
> Name calling ("control freak") is childish.
>
> If you are not a lawyer and you want to bet that dynamic linking to a
> GPL'ed library doesn't invoke the GPL then I think you're taking a
> gamble. Clearly you think you know more about the law than the FSF
> General Counsel Eben Moglen (professor of law at Columbia).
>
> Combined works dynamically linked to GPL libraries involve untested
> legal issues. The legal issues are complex, and when law and
> technology collide it can be hard to predict the outcome. RMS
> believes the GPL is enforcable in this case, but until someone is
> willing to be sued by the FSF over this no one will know for sure.
> (None of the GPL violators the FSF has pursued have been willing to
> risk a trial so far.)
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>