Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:45:32AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: >> Steve Langasek wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: >> >> Steve Langasek wrote: >> >> > Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a >> >> > program. >> >> > But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of >> >> > FireBird >> >> > that uses libreadline. > >> >> On further research, >> >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL seems to >> >> imply that linking a program to a GPL library (even for personal >> >> use) means the program must be GPL. > >> >> This seems like a contradiction. > >> > I've noticed that the FSF's GPL FAQ does a rather embarrassing job >> > of distinguishing between use and distribution/modification. >> > Section 0 of the GPL says: > >> > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are >> > not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act >> > of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the >> > Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on >> > the >> > Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). > >> > This clearly trumps anything that might be in the GPL FAQ. > >> And section 4 says: >> You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program >> except as expressly provided under this License. > >> Since there is no express permission to modify (and _not_ distribute), >> this modification would not be allowed, right? So the user can't >> modify his own copy for personal use, without following all of section >> 2's requirements? (2a-prominant notice and 2c-changed interactive >> message. 2b is satisfied) > > So far, we aren't doing anything that requires making modifications to > the GPL library; all the proposed modifications have been to the > application, which is not only not GPLed, it's also GPL-incompatible. > If a user were to make modifications to a local copy of the library, > then yes, it would have to be done in a way that complies with the > terms of the GPL.
The specific example of FireBird was a program (GPL-incompatible license, but modifications are allowed -- http://firebird.sourceforge.net/index.php?op=doc&id=ipl) linked with GNU Readline (GPL). So the user, exercising his right to modify FireBird, makes the 1-line change (replace -leditline with -lreadline) to use GNU Readline. He never distributes his modified FireBird++, but is in violation of the GPL in the privacy of his $HOME? --Joe
