"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 05:11:06PM +1000, Amos Shapira wrote: > >> We have just noticed that one of the programs in our proprietary >> arsenal uses GPL code (libipq, the netfilter interface library) >> even though the contractor who wrote it was instructed to re-code >> the application to avoid using GPL code. > > Before you do anything, make sure to hire a good lawyer who > understands and deals with intellecutal property issues. 99% of the > corporate lawyers out there do not.
Correct. Also make sure you don't take legal opinions voiced on Linux-IL for granted. This includes mine. And Geoff's, in case I didn't make it clear, despite his technical expertise... ;-) Amos, you are absolutely right to ask the question. The three solutions you propose (1 and 3 look very similar to me - they both boil down to inplementing the necessary functionality independently) look valid, and I'd say it's your choice which one to take. Geoff's comments spin around some common misconceptions about the GPL or mix in the issue of making the libipq code available to your clients, which is not what worries you at all, I gather. Geoff is right that you might contact the copyright holders to see if they will be willing to release the library under another license, maybe for a fee. I suspect - but don't know - that in this case they might refuse. > The second question is which version of the GPL does the library use? > Is it the original GPL, or the LGPL. It is GPL on my system, not LGPL. > If the library has a published interface and all your programmer did > is call it using that interface, then your code is not covered by > the GPL. Not true. According to GPL, if you link your code to a GPL library your code falls under "derivative work" category, and must be released under GPL. See the GPL itself and the accompanying FAQ. > If the program uses interface options that do not exist in the > documentation, or it plays games (such as the infamous "this code is > not released under the GPL" comments to fool a module), then there > is some question as to it being under the GPL. Also not true. Geoff, you are not seriously suggesting that if the documentation for my GPLed program is incomplete this invalidates the license, are you? > Assuming the library was released under the GPL, then you would have > to make the source code for the library available IF you include it > in your product. The issue is not libipq here, the issue is Amos's company's code, and Amos understands this. > Dynamicly linked libraries are NOT included, staticly linked ones > are. Also wrong. There is no difference, except maybe when you need not distribute the library code, which is not the issue here at all. > If your program loads the library included in whatever distribution > your customer is running "on the fly", then it's not part of your > program and you don't have to make the source code available. If > it's staticly linked, then you need to make the source code of the > library publicly available. Again, this is not the issue. Amos is not asking about making libipq code available - it's his company's code he is concerned about. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.goldshmidt.org ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
