From: jim@n5ial.mythical.com (Jim Graham) Subject: Re: Recent GPL interpretations and Linux Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 12:16:30 GMT
In article <jvsC9x8vB.7H@netcom.com> jvs@netcom.com (Jonathan Stockley)
writes:
> How do they (FSF) know that I'm refering to the GNU version of the
> function? The object is only *referencing* the external (say regex). I
> don't think that just because I make a call to regex (as an external) that
> anyone can say that I'm refering to the GNU version. Now, if I was
> *relying* on behaviour that was only available from the GNU version it
> would be a different matter. But to say that just because I call a function
> foo and that there just happens to be a GNU version of that function
> *available* that my whole program has to be GPL'd is hogwash. Remember I'm
> talking about an object not a linked executable.
First off, when I was under a big misunderstanding about attitudes toward
non-free software, many people pointed out to me that, as far as the Linux
community (which is all I care about) is concerned, as long as you use the
shared libs, you're ok, since you aren't linking in the GNU libs.
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't really much of an issue, although I
do very much like the idea of replacing the GPL'd code with truly free code.
Just as a suggestion, one of the libraries in question was dbm, wasn't it?
I recently saw a copy of a library from Berkeley that replaces dbm posted
posted to comp.sources.unix (or at least, comp.sources.something). I've
got a copy here, but no ftp. Also, I've seen several sets of regex (or is
that regexp?) code floating around, and can probably dig up some in my old
archive disks.
But your post raises an interesting way of supporting that, even if it's
challenged! Basically, as you've indicated, you compile your code to use
whatever shared libraries the user has around, right? I don't know exactly
how shared libs work, so we'll assume that there are some limitations as to
the format of the lib, etc., not to mention the obvious fact that Sun (etc.)
shared libs won't work on a 386, :-) but that isn't the point. The point
is, they may be using shared libs that contain GPL'd code, or they may not
be...you have no way of knowing.
So you release your commercial product with a disclaimer that basically says
that the only thing this code assumes is that you have a working copy of the
shared libraries. It does not assume that you have GPL'd shared libs, nor
does it assume that you don't. It does not require one or the other, as
such. In other words, your shared library is your business, my code is my
business, and they are two different matters.
Good, eh?
--jim