From: Thomas Dodd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Julie wrote:
> > My reading of the GPL is that you only get in trouble if you
> > distribute a GPL'd work as an essential part of a larger non-GPL'd
> > product. If you distribute the two separately, the terms of
> > distribution of the non-GPL'd work have no bearing on the GPL'd
> > work and vice versa. If you'd like an example of this, every
> > proprietary OS that has had a GPL'd program ported to it
> > should suffice. Proprietary OS vendors have been very careful
> > not to distribute GPL'd software as parts of their proprietary
> > OSes, but that hasn't kept GPL'd programs from being ported
> > to use non-GPL'd libraries and OSes.
>
> My understanding is that hardware drivers (like a NIC or SCSI HBA)
> are not "seperate works" but part of the complet work
> know as the OS or kernel. Putting GPL code into that makes
> the wole work GPL. But apps (like gcc, or gnumeric) are
> seperate works in and of themselves, so only the app has to
> be GPL. But if you take the gnumeric Excel filter or
> the gcc C++ parser, and put them in another app, it
> would be a derived work and need to be GPL'ed too.
Then don't distribute them with the OS -- force the recipient to
make them part of a "complete work". Then so long as the
person who combines them (by loading the module into a
running kernel ...) doesn't distribute their "complete work" (which
is a running kernel ...) you're safe. There is no way someone
can claim that my NIC driver (as an example) is a part of a work
it wasn't even shipped with.
> > Again, I don't see how a restriction here could be enforced.
>
> It would require a lawsuit to find out, and so far nobody
> has filed one that I know of. Most GPL software belongs to
> people whyo don't have the time or money for one, and
> the companies with the time and money, don't
> release GPL software.
I think there is a lot of mythology about what the GPL can and
cannot do. I don't hear much talk about how the GPL is a
virus anymore, but that's how I view it. The interpretation that
a non-GPL'd NIC driver that's been loaded into a running kernel
on a GPL'd OS is, IMHO, just another example of Stallman
trying to "infect" everything he can get his hands on.
> IANL either, so I just stay clear of these issues.
> If I modify GPL code it stays with me. Nobody else ever
> sees it, Or I send patches to the authors/owners and
> let them decide weather it should become part of the normal
> distributed code. Playing it safe keeps me out of trouble.
I just avoid GPL'd software as best I can. I've found GPL'd
software to be the least stable of the "open source"-like
licensed software packages. It also tends to be the most
bloated and suffer the most creeping featurism.
-- Julie.
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
