From: jem@sunSITE.unc.edu (Jonathan Magid) Subject: Re: What would people think of binary-only software on Linux? Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 18:10:23 GMT
In article <1mqu7cINNlgi@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>
>3. Quoting the GPL:
>
> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> sections when you distribute them as separate works.
>
>I interpret this to mean that my proprietary.o is a separate work, but the 5
>lines of code I added to GPL-file.c do not allow me to distribute GPL-file.o
>alone.
I disagree on this point. I am not a lawyer, but I would suspec that the
linking process goes beyond mere aggregation. Before I would bet my liveli-
hood on your interpretation, I would consult a lawyer. This is what RMS had
to say about the matter.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Subject: Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL?
Message-ID: <9301130018.AA28371@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: daemon@cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:18:55 GMT
Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL?
People often speculate about technical procedures that might
circumvent the GPL in some way. For example, they may suggest a
modified version could be cut artificially into two pieces, one free
and one proprietary, that are called two independent programs.
This kind of scheme is based on the premise that the legal system
operates in the fashion of a stupid computer program, and that
superficial manipulations of the way files are grouped and labeled
would fool it. While the legal system often does seem stupid and
easily fooled in comparison with common sense, the FSF's lawyer told
us that it would not be stupid about this.
The lawyer said that such a scheme would fail because a judge would
regard it as a subterfuge. The judge would conclude that the two
parts are really one program in disguise, and go on from there.
Our lawyer also said that a judge would tend to be harsh toward anyone
perceived to be trying a subterfuge.
As hackers, we tend to become absorbed in the technical details of the
proposed schemes, and not pay enough attention to the wider context.
The possibility of a loophole in the GPL might be interesting
abstractly in its own right, but its main importance is in connection
with whether the GPL does what it is supposed to do: ensure that
modified versions of a program are free.
Hackers also tend to model the GPL based on concepts used for security
systems, assuming that any puncture makes it collapse like a soap
bubble. But business doesn't move like a gas; more like molasses. If
a real, legally sustainable loophole were found, its effect would be
diminished by the inconvenience of using it. This is likely to be
significant, and would dissuade most companies from trying. Thus, the
GPL would still retain most of its effect.
Experience shows that companies are not eager to try to circumvent the
GPL. If they think their plans might conflict with the GPL, they
generally contact the FSF to make sure there is no conflict.
The most fundamental point--the "bottom line"--is that as a practical
matter the GPL does achieve its goal. Improvements to our software
are actually made free, and no amount of speculation can override this
fact. Apparently, any loopholes are sufficiently inconvenient that
they are not much of a factor.