Alan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > HOWEVER, proprietary code sitting on top of the GPL code was not > forced into GPL, even by vector of including standard libraries (If > someone really doesn't want to risk it they can always go out and buy > Intel's CC instead of usding GCC, etc. The Intel compiler is > substantially more efficient than gcc anyway....)
Depends on what "sitting on top" means. Linking certainly constitutes a derivative work. Using an application (e.g. a compiler) to create something doesn't. > GPL doesn't taint everything it touches, just items which include GPL > code (which does NOT include header files). #include literally puts code someone else has written into your application, so how does this not constitute a derivative work? The only exception I can think about is when the header file describes an open standard, so that the interface is not copyrightable. > Bacula including mysql client code which may include OpenSSL code > doesn't force OpenSSL or the mysql code into GPL, or any other > included libraries for that matter. The issue with OpenSSL lies with the Bacula license, as Landon correctly explained. > > Yes, this is fine if Bacula is a separate package. I wonder if > > users could legally sell proprietary Python packages that are > > called by Bacula? I could care less, but this seems to me to be > > such a gray area. > > Yes they can. this has already been thrashed out several times and is > in no way different to (say) Oracle running on a Linux system. I don't know what GPL code Oracle depends on. The libc is LGPL and the kernel has an exception for syscalls. > Companies which are totally risk-averse may decide to compile static > images using proprietary libraries and compilers, at extra cost, but > they retain 100% of their copyright even if having to pay distribution > license royalties to Borland or Intel or whoever else.... I think that's rather the question if you want to spend money on licenses or on legal advice. > GPL is not the boogeyman people make out. It is still a licensing > method and in the end the author stil retains copyright. If anything > it enhances the author's rights while still making the code available > for use. Don't tell Microsoft that all the BSD-like code they use is illegal. :-) > Without GPL, it is impossible to legally use much code and that's > where companies fall over - they always have the option of > attempting to negotiate an indiivual copyright assignment with a > software autohor if they don't want to use GPL. That depends on the development model. It is impossible to get a seperate license for the Linux kernel because there are too many copyright owners, probably including some who don't have to do anything with the kernel development at all. Hendrik ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
