From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () Subject: Re: Linux vs. RSAREF Date: 8 Jul 1993 13:25:02 GMT
In article <BASHFORD.93Jul7145959@griffy.scripps.edu> bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes:
>>>>>> In article <Jul.6.23.35.21.1993.10891@geneva.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>
>CH> }>5. Is selling Motif for Linux a violation of the GPL?
>CH> }>6. Can one, "in general" distribute and use, software the FSF considers
>
>CH> While I agree with you, my recent correspondence with rms suggests
>CH> that he considers the answer to be 5 and 6 to be "yes" and "no". He
>CH> appears to take the position that a binary that requires a GPL'ed
>CH> library is a derivative work, even if integration isn't done until
>CH> runtime. While I find it hard to imagine what legal grounds there are
>CH> for this position, I doubt that any sane vendor is going to produce
>CH> software where this is this kind of legal ambiguity. Thus I think
>CH> we're going to have to produce a GPL-free libc....
>
>I think people are panicing too soon. There is explicit exception for
>things like libc in the GPL:
>
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a portion or derivative of
> it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>
> a) accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> source code,.....
>
> For an executable file, complete source code means
> all the source code for all modules it contains; but, as a special
> exception, it need not include source code for modules which are standard
> libraries that accompany the operating system on which the executable
> file runs, or for standard header files or definitions files that
> accompany that operating system.
>
This is exactly the problem...Take the case of Motif for linux...somebody
*buys* the source for Motif and ports it to linux. According to the above
statement, if that person wanted to distribute Motif for linux then they
would be *required* to distribute the *entire* source code for Motif
(which, if I'm not mistaken, violates the licensing agreement for the
purchase of the Motif source code...). Now, I assumed that (and have
had many net.experts tell me) a person can develop and distribute
software however they want for linux, but the above statements (both
referencing RMS and the GPL) *seem* to indicate that the *only* way to
distribute/sell Motif for linux would be to inculde the "complete source
code". This is fine if linux is to *only* have "free software". This
looks like it is virtually impossible to port existing commercial software
to linux simply because most (not all) commercial software vendors are not going
to release their source code for free redistribution...
Do you see the confusion? What is the *correct* interpretation ? and if it is
subject to this kind of interpretational question, wouldn't it be a good idea
to aviod the possible problems altogether?
John
jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov