Static Linking, the GPL and the LGPL
There seems to be some difference of opinion whether certain kinds of "linking" creates issues under the GPL. The question mostly seems to be whether a derivative work is created or not.Let's suppose that there is some code that is subject to the GPL or the LGPL (call it the "library") that is "statically linked" to other code. Does that make the other code a derivative work of the library?
Why is this important? If I link a GPL'd library to other code and then distribute the result, I may be forced to use the GPL.
It seems to me that we first have to create a common ground for just exactly what "static linking" means. According to Wikipedia, static linking:
"embeds a library directly into the program executable at compile time by a linker. A linker is a separate utility which takes one or more libraries and object files (which are previously generated by a compiler or an assembler) and produces an actual executable file. Internally all references to code located in the library are replaced with a pointer to the code; since it cannot move independantly of the executable, this fixed offset will never change.
One of the biggest disadvantages of static linking is that each executable ends up containing its own copy of the library. "
[Quotes from Wikipedia are subject to its license.]
Does static linking create a derivative work?
25 Comments:
> Does static linking create a derivative work?
Static linking creates a compilation, not a
derivative work. It's the same as an aggregation
of dynamically linked components packaged in
one single archive. Think of JAVA JARs
(conventional ZIP's aside for a moment ;-) )
or MS.NET assemblies.
Mere aggregation, you know. ;-)
regards,
alexander.
P.S. www.google.de/groups?threadm=410842A8.5D889B13%40web.de
quoting OSI's president...
consider the case of two scientific papers which
reference each other. The fact that paper B calls
paper A (references it for support) does not make
B a derivative work of A. This remains true whether
B and A are published together in a symposium
(analogous to static linkage) or separately
(analogous to dynamic linkage). Computer programs
are defined in 17 USC as literary works
Anyone who downloads a copy of GPL or LGPL software is the
"owner" of that *copy* of the program in a fixed and
tangible medium.
"Ownership of a copy should be determined based on the
actual character, rather than the label, of the transaction
by which the user obtained possession... The pertinent issue
is whether, as in a lease, the user may be required to
return the copy to the vendor after the expiration of a
particular period. If not, the transaction conveyed not only
possession, but also transferred ownership of the copy.
Raymond Nimmer, The Law of Computer Technology § 1.18[1] p.
1-103 (1992)" --- SOFTMAN PRODUCTS COMPANY, LLC, v. ADOBE
SYSTEMS INC.; et al.,CV 00-04161 DDP (AJWx);(2001)(C.D.
CA).
Section 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer
programs---
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not
an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer
program to make or authorize the making of another copy or
adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
manner, or
In order to "utilize" your copy of the program you may place
it in computer memory notwithstanding the provisions of
section 106. Therefore no derivative work is created.
Note: You probably cannot save the executable to disk. Object code is protected. I may have muddied the water with dynamic linking. I misread the question to mean "copy in memory".
> Anyone who downloads a copy of GPL or LGPL software
> is the "owner" of that *copy* of the program in a
> fixed and tangible medium.
And as the "owner of a particular copy or phonorecord
lawfully made," anyone gets to dispose of its
possession as anyone sees fit (except by rental)
*without the authority of the copyright owner*.
17 USC 109.
BTW, there can be many works fixed in that tangible
medium. Compilations, you know.
regards,
alexander.
> Note: You probably cannot save the executable to
> disk. Object code is protected.
Even Time Warner, Inc. concedes that "the initial
downloading of a copy, from an authorized source to a
purchaser's computer, can result in lawful ownership
of a copy stored in a tangible medium."
regards,
alexander.
The FSF insists that any kind of linking, whether dynamic or static, creates a derivative work under US copyright law. I've attended their seminars. I know this first-hand. I think the FSF's assertion is asinine and goes against the spirit of copyright law. Let's think about how the derivative works doctrine has traditionally been applied: to cover essentially sequels, translations, etc. Something where the creator of the derivative work transformed the original work in some way, by modifying it or extending it or what have you. Examples include a movie based on a book, a new translation of a book, a remix of a song, and a new version or an extension to a software program. But to say that sticking two separate collections of code into one executable amounts to creating a derivative work is ridiculous.
Just because you have a copyright on a cryptographic library, does not mean that my email application, which links to that library, is a modification, extention, sequel, or translation of your library. In my opinion, the FSF's interpretation of the meaning of derivative works for software pushes the limits of reason. To agree with the FSF, you'd be granting the owner of that crypto library the right to control the licensing of any software that uses it. I know the FSF is taking hardline stance on "software freedom." But this is too much.
If you take a step back and look at the entire operating system + applications, you see that it's really just an amorphous collection of bits. To draw a boundary around an "executable" is purely arbitrary. I think that, in order to be a derivative work, a program has to build upon the protected expression in the linked work in a way analagous to a sequel or new version.
The absurdity of the FSF's view can be demonstrated with one last example. When it comes to the Linux kernel and device drivers, the FSF thinks that any device driver that is added to the Linux kernel must be GPL'd, because it is a derivative work. But Linus Torvalds disagrees. He points out that some of these drivers were ported from other operating systems and that you can hardly argue that source code which predates the kernel is a derivative work of the kernel. I agree with Linus.
I do have to admit that the FSF is not completely off the wall with their interpretation given the paucity of good federal court precedent on derivative works in software. The few cases we have (such as the Apple case or Galoob or Micro Star) could certainly be used to argue the FSF's position. Personally, I'd like to see more case law in this area.
TO: osslawgeek
The Free Software Foundation needs a lesson in copyright
law.
1) The U.S. Congress writes the copyright law.
2) The U.S. Supreme Court followed by the Federal Courts of
Appeal followed by the Federal District Courts interpret
what Congress meant when questions arise.
3) Retired physicists, computer programmers, well meaning
citizens, social zealots or law professors do *not* --- the
men in the black robes rule the roost.
When I assert my opinion on a copyright topic I always try
to cite the the legal authority upon which my opinion rests.
I can certainly be wrong but people also can see the
"authority" upon which I base my opinions. Show me
convincing authority and I will readily admit I'm wrong.
I'm sure that Paul having been trained in the law
understands perfectly well what I'm saying. The doctrine of
"stare decisis" --- "to stand by that which is decided"
should be a first guide for people in their conclusions
about copyright law.
The thirteen Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal for the most
part interpret the application of the Copyright Act. The
Supreme Court usually only steps in to referee their
inability to agree on an important matter.
I look to their decisions for much in the way of guidance. I
try to look at the history of their decisions and the
context in which they are decided.
The thing that irritates me about the Free Software
Foundation and OSI is their utter arrogance in making
assertions about "open source law". There exists an utter
vacuum when it comes to citation to credible legal authority
by these self-proclaimed "experts" --- Professor Nimmer or
Goldstein they are not. When challenged they either grow
mute or resort to self-serving obsfucation. You can't
argue with them. It's like trying to prove a negative.
They postulate that pigs can fly and then expect you
to disprove their claims.
In the world of physics extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof.
Here is the Free Software Foundation's Eben Moglen on
license:
"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to
remain within the bounds of the license not because she
voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right
to act at all except as the license permits."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
Here is Judge Newman of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit on license:
"A license is governed by the laws of contract. See McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920, 36 USPQ2d 1289,
1291 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Whether express or implied, a
license is a contract governed by ordinary principles of
state contract law.")." Jazz Photo v. ITC, (CAFC) 264 F.3d
1094, August 21, 2001
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fed&
navby=case&no=991431
Who ya gonna' believe?
It seems to me that static linking, according to the definition you quoted below, would necessarily constitute creating a derivative work.
I'll focus on this line: "'One of the biggest disadvantages of static linking is that each executable ends up containing its own copy of the library.'"
Let's make an analogy to novel writing and publishing. I write a book, copyright it and publish it. You write another book, which happens to contain a complete copy of my book, and you want to publish that. Clearly, you cannot hope to be able to do so (legally) without my permission.
Static linking creates a new file which contains part of the library. One might argue about how much of the library is included and whether this constitutes fair use, but you cannot argue that the newly created file does not contain part of the library.
If the new file contains a substantial part of the library (meaning fair use would not apply), then you cannot distribute this new file without permission of the copyright holder of the library.
-- Ken
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I was not involved in writing the GPL. Everything expressed here is my opinion, and is based on publicly available information. Opinons expressed here do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any other person or entity.
To: Alexander
You can download a copy to disk. Yes... you own that
physical copy on that disk. You cannot make a second copy of
that disk. That is not within the meaning of "dispose". You
can sell it, burn it or give to a friend but you cannot
duplicate it.
If you download a copy of GPL'd software onto your hard
drive, you can subsequently load it into memory and modify
the object code in memory but you cannot *then* save the
modified code back to disk unless is solely for archival
purposes. Keep in mind that "adaptation" means a derivative
work.
See my CAPITALIZED emphasis:
Sec 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program
to make or authorize the making of another COPY or
ADAPTATION of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new COPY or ADAPTATION is created as an
essential step in the UTILIZATION of the computer program in
CONJUNCTION WITH A MACHINE and that it is USED IN NO OTHER
MANNER, or
(2) THAT SUCH NEW COPY or ADAPTATION IS FOR ARCHIVAL
PURPOSES ONLY and that all archival copies are destroyed in
the event that continued possession of the computer program
should cease to be rightful. Any EXACT COPIES prepared in
accordance with the provisions of this section may be
leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy
from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the
lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program.
ADAPTATIONS so prepared MAY BE TRANSFERRED ONLY WITH THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.
> You can download a copy to disk. Yes... you own that
> physical copy on that disk.
Suppose that I download it directly to Nero-InCD-
like "folder".
> You cannot make a second copy of that disk.
Ok. Look, FSF says that the [L]GPL is a *unilateral*
permission that allows me to copy all the ways I can
imagine. I agree. ;-)
Sec. 109 says that I can dispose/distribute those
particular copies (I don't need a license for that)
and I've not "agreed" to surrender that right
(there's no binding contract). In light of FSF's
propaganda and [L]GPL language, the act of copying
(forget downloading from the authorized source for
a moment) of publicly available GPL'ed work just
can't be viewed as manifestation of assent.
What say you?
> [... 17 USC 117 adaptations ...]
17 USC 117 adaptations are irrelevant. If you don't
have a permission to prepare derivative works then
you (as a lawful owner of a copy or two) still can
alter (and/or extend) computer programs and
create/employ adaptations "provided: [see 17 USC
117 (1) and (2)]". Unauthorized patching comes
to my mind.
But thanks to the [L]GPL you have a *unilateral*
permission to prepare "standalone" derivative works.
Again no contract. And resulting material objects
have really nothing to do with 17 USC 117
adaptations. I think.
regards,
alexander.
> Let's make an analogy to novel writing and
> publishing. I write a book, copyright it and
> publish it.
Yeah.
http://ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov/MS-Docs/1636/0.pdf
[quote author=Hollaar]
Substituting an alternative module for one supplied by
Microsoft may not violate copyright law [...] A bookstore can replace the last chapter of a mystery
novel without infringing its copyright, as long as they
are not reprinting the other chapters but are simply
removing the last chapter and replacing it with an
alternative one, but must not pass the book off as the
original. Having a copyright in a work does not give
that copyright owner unlimited freedom in the terms he
can impose.
[end quote]
Note that the GPL does allow "reprinting". That's
sections 1 (source code) and 3 (object code), not
section 2 (recasting).
regards,
alexander.
> Galoob
You might want to visit westlaw.com and buy a copy of
"Christian H. Nadan, Note, A Proposal to Recognize
Component Works: How a Teddy Bears on the Competing
Ends of Copyright Law, 78 Cal.L.Rev."
It's cited in
http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs4984/computerlaw/lewis.doc
("LEWIS GALOOB TOYS, INC. v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC.")
[quote]
Some time ago, for example, computer companies began
marketing spell-checkers that operate within existing
word processors by signalling the writer when a word is
misspelled. These applications, as well as countless
others, could not be produced and marketed if courts
were to conclude that the word processor and spell-
checker combination is a derivative work based on the
word processor alone. The Game Genie is useless by
itself, it can only enhance, and cannot duplicate or
recaste, a Nintendo game[... "output" ...] nor does it
supplant demand for Nintendo game cartridges. Such
innovations rarely will constitute infringing
derivative works under the Copyright Act. See
generally Nadan, supra, at 1667-72.
[end quote]
regards,
alexander.
Alexander,
The original topic question in this thread was
"Does static linking create a derivative work?"
For the sake of argument, I was assuming the
GPL is enforceable (arguendo). When I said:
"If you download a copy of GPL'd software onto your hard
drive, you can subsequently load it into memory and modify
the object code in memory but you cannot *then* save the
modified code back to disk unless is solely for archival
purposes. Keep in mind that "adaptation" means a derivative
work."
I meant you cannot save it back to disk *without* creating a
derivative work of the original downloaded copy. If you did
you would be bound (arguendo) by the license terms.
Does this clarify things?
If you did save it back to disk Richard Stallman would
(arguendo) control your contributed modifying code, your
wife, your dog, your kids and according to Eben Moglen the
new golf clubs you got for Christmas.
"If you did save it back to disk Richard Stallman would (arguendo) control your contributed modifying code, your wife, your dog, your kids and according to Eben Moglen the new golf clubs you got for Christmas."
According to the GPL FAQ: "You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them."
So (assuming this is correct, I couldn't find this in the GPL itself right now) you may save it to disk, and only if you distribute the modified version does the above apply.
Frits
> The original topic question in this thread was
> "Does static linking create a derivative work?"
It doesn't. Static linking creates a "mere
aggregation" in the GPL terms.
> For the sake of argument, I was assuming the
> GPL is enforceable (arguendo). When I said:
> [... 17 USC 117 ...]
I don't see the relevance of 17 USC 117 to the
original topic in this thread. Static linking
is the same as tar/jar/zip/...'ing together the
source code modules or lib'ing a bunch of object
files together. If you have a corresponding map,
you can even "separate" the executable (recreate
individual object files).
regards,
alexander.
Let me try to answer my own question.
The first question that I'd ask in this context is what is the "work" (as in "literary work" under the Copyright Act) that I need to examine?
In this case, my answer would be the executable. I see no basis for subdividing an executable for this purpose. I highly doubt that a Federal judge would subdivide an executable for this purpose.
The I'd ask whether the executable has expressive elements of the library in it. The answer in this situation has to be "yes."
Therefore, the executable is a derivative work of the library. I personally believe that this conclusion is a slam dunk (another legal term of art).
You can probably tell already from this blog that I'm not a card-carrying member of the FSF. However, if you think that Stallman or Moglen are crazy for their assertion that using a statically linked library creates a derivative work, then please put me in the same boat.
> I personally believe that this conclusion is a slam
> dunk.
What about a zip archive containing two executables?
What about a zip archive containing a copy of this web
page?
What if that archive is self-extracting (i.e. archive
itself is an executable)?
C'mon, think of an ISO CD image (also one file).
regards,
alexander.
A ''computer program'' is a set of statements or
instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a
computer in order to bring about a certain result.
--- The Copyright Act
I see no meaning that can be attached to "set of statements
or instructions used... to bring about a certain result"
except *executable* set of statements or instructions "in
conjunction with the utilization of a machine" in the above
definition
I have adapted Section 101 definitions.
A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and
assembling of PREEXISTING computer programs in such a way
that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original
work of authorship. The term ''compilation'' includes
collective works. Compiled works are not meant to be
executable and therefore *are not* "computer programs".
A ''collective work'' is a computer program, in which a
number of contributions, constituting SEPARATE and
INDEPENDENT computer programs in themselves, are assembled
into a collective whole. Collective works are not meant to
be executable and therefore *are not* "computer programs".
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more
preexisting computer programs which may be recast,
transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial
revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
which, as a whole, represents an original work of
authorship, is a ''derivative work''. Derivative works are
meant to be executable and therefore *are* "computer
programs".
Static libraries are "linked in" and protected object code
is copied to disk as an *executable* "computer program".
They are in every sense "derivative works".
Section 117 protects dynamic linking in memory unless
contractually prohibited. Why do I say contractually
prohibited?
In 1976 Congress created The Commission on New Technological
Uses.
"This is the area of computer uses... the The Commission on
New Technological Uses is, among other things, now engaged
in making a thorough study of the emerging patterns in this
field and it will, on the basis of its findings, recommend
definitive copyright provisions to deal with the situation."
--- House Report No. 94-1476
http://digital-law-online.info/CONTU/contu6.html
(See the last sentence below)
"Because of a lack of complete standardization among
programming languages and hardware in the computer industry,
one who rightfully acquires a copy of a program frequently
cannot use it without adapting it to that limited extent
which will allow its use in the possessor’s computer. The
copyright law, which grants to copyright proprietors the
exclusive right to prepare translations, transformations,
and adaptations of their work, should no more prevent such
use than it should prevent rightful possessors from loading
programs into their computers.51 Thus, a right to make those
changes necessary to enable the use for which it was both
sold and purchased should be provided. The conversion of a
program from one higher-level language to another to
facilitate use would fall within this right, as would the
right to add features to the program that were not present
at the time of rightful acquisition. These rights would
necessarily be more private in nature than the right to load
a program by copying it and could only be exercised so long
as they did not harm the interests of the copyright
proprietor. Unlike the exact copies authorized as described
above, this right of adaptation could not be conveyed to
others along with the licensed or owned program without the
express authorization of the owner of the copyright in the
original work. Preparation of adaptations could not, of
course, deprive the original proprietor of copyright in the
underlying work.52 The adaptor could not vend the adapted
program, under the proposed revision of the new law,53 nor
could it be sold as the original without the author’s
permission.54 Again, it is likely that many transactions
involving copies of programs are entered into with full
awareness that users will modify their copies to suit their
own needs, and this should be reflected in the law. The
comparison of this practice to extensive marginal
note-taking in a book is appropriate: note-taking is
arguably the creation of a derivative work, but unless the
note-taker tries to copy and vend that work, the copyright
owner is unlikely to be very concerned. SHOULD PROPRIETORS
FEEL STRONGLY THAT {PAGE 14} THEY DO NOT WANT RIGHTFUL
POSSESSORS OF COPIES OF THEIR PROGRAMS TO PREPARE SUCH
ADAPTATIONS, THEY COULD, OF COURSE, MAKE SUCH DESIRES A
CONTRACTUAL MATTER."
*The courts follow these recomendations very closely*
quoted from "contu6":
> The comparison of this practice to extensive marginal
> note-taking in a book is appropriate: note-taking is
> arguably the creation of a derivative work, but
> unless the note-taker tries to copy and vend that
> work, the copyright owner is unlikely to be very
> concerned.
Yeah.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm
[quote]
We asked at oral argument what would happen if a
purchaser jotted a note on one of the note cards, or
used it as a coaster for a drink, or cut it in half,
or if a collector applied his seal (as is common in
Japan); Lee's counsel replied that such changes
prepare derivative works, but that as a practical
matter artists would not file suit. A definition of
derivative work that makes criminals out of art
collectors and tourists is jarring despite Lee's
gracious offer not to commence civil litigation.
[end quote]
;-)
regards,
alexander.
> I know the FSF is taking hardline stance on
> "software freedom." But this is too much.
Yeah. Unbelievable.
http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/slide-49.html
[begin textual copying]
July 27, 2004 GPL Compliance for Software Developers Legal notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal notes
Static linking creates a derivative work through textual copying
Most dynamic linking cases involve distributing the library
Still a derivative work:
Dynamic linking
Distributing only the executable (testtriangle)
Still a derivative work:
Distributing the source code of software which links to a library
when that library is the only software to provide that interface
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2004, Free Software Foundation. Verbatim copying permitted provided this notice is preserved.
[end textual copying]
Tough law they have over there in the GNU Republic.
regards,
alexander.
> Static linking creates a new file which contains
> part of the library.
In US copyright-speak, assembly of two or more
works forming a new overall ("as a whole") work is
called a "compilation." It's not a "derivative work"
of any of its component works.
regards,
alexander.
[quoting FSF's "legal notes"]
> Static linking creates a derivative work
> through textual copying [... etc. ...]
Consider...
[quoting Hollaar*]
http://www.google.de/groups?selm=66or66%248bi%40magus.cs.utah.edu
While it's probably the case that no two people agree
what the copyright law really means, but I think a
good argument can be made that derivative works are not
simply another form of a reproduction.
First, because they are addressed differently in
Section 106, normal statutory construction would
consider them different. Even what you do with them
is different -- you "reproduce copyrighted works"
but you "prepare derivative works". Derivative
works imply a considerably more creative process
than simple reproduction.
Second, Congress provided a definition of
"derivative work" that emphasizes that the
derivative work is some transformation of the
original work. Professor Goldstein characterizes
this as "the reproduction right leaves off and
derivative rights begin at that point at which the
contribution of independent expression to an
existing work effectively creates a new work for a
different market." ...
Third, Congress has treated the reproduction and
the derivative works rights differently. See, for
example, 17 USC 114(b), which deals with the
exclusive rights in sound recordings, where
different limitations are given for the two rights.
Similarly, Section 117 permits both the creation
of "another copy" and an "adaptation" of a computer
program under certain conditions.
[quoting Rosen**]
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05842.html
----
I continue to believe that these confusing messages
about "derivative works" entirely miss the mark.
Where in the statutory or case law can one find
support for such conclusions as are reflected in
these messages?
If you don't create "a work based upon one or more
preexisting works" then you have simply not created
a derivative work. 17 U.S.C. §101.
How in the world does an independently-written piece
of software that communicates with another
independently-written piece of software through a
published API ever become a derivative work of that
other software? Where in the GPL does it say that it
can become a derivative work?
Nothing in the Copyright Act addresses the *use* of
software in this way. If the GPL is enforced under
the copyright law, then how could a court ever
conclude that it reaches to such API-connected
pre-existing works that merely get used together?
----
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05865.html
----
I think your response would be appropriate if the GPL
were a contract rather than a mere copyright license.
The GPL is intended by its authors to be interpreted
and enforced under copyright law. There is no basis
in that law for the definition of "derivative work"
that is implied by the GPL language you quoted. How
can you assume that a licensee accepted such a
broadened definition of "derivative work" absent his
assent to a contract?
The MPL also attempts to apply to more than derivative
works. While I don't particularly understand its
reach, at least it is to be enforced as a contract and
thus the definitions in that contract are relevant.
That, for me, is the essential difference between a
copyright license and a contract.
The GPL can't do more than copyright law allows --
because that's how its authors want it to be treated.
I don't understand how GPL licensors can benefit from
contract provisions.
----
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05877.html
----
> Assume that someone statically links
> object modules compiled from G and object modules
> compiled from H into a single executable file (call
> this executable file G+H).
>
> I believe that there is wide agreement that the GPL
> is interpreted such that the author of G has not
> given permission for distribution of that single
> executable file.
> (I also believe there is less widespread agreement on
> the alternative where the linking occurs at runtime.)
I don't know that there is widespread agreement to
either of those propositions. Indeed, isn't that
really what we've all been discussing?
[I must admit, I once publicly argued the point your
way, but I have since recanted because I couldn't find
any statutory or case law support for my earlier
position.]
> H is not a derivative work of G. So, how does one get
> to this widely agreed result? I believe that that
> interpretation assumes that G+H is a "work based on
> the Program". So, it looks to me like it is generally
> agreed that the GPL does indeed concern itself with
> whether G and H are parts of something larger (not
> necessarily every larger thing, but at least some
> sorts of larger things). Thus, it seems that
> stopping analysis at the point of determining that H
> is not a derivative of G is failing to complete the
> analysis needed to judge compliance with the GPL.
I am still not certain what is meant by the phrase
"work based on the Program." Under your scenario, G
and H are entirely independent creations. If G+H
requires merely the making of copies of G and H, an
act permitted without restriction by the GPL, then why
is it a derivative work? Why is that a work based on
the Program?
----
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05882.html
----
Scott,
> You keep returning to contract obligations. But, I'm
> not relying on any contract obligations. Any
> distribution that includes copyrightable material
> from B needs the permission of B's copyright owner.
> The hypothetical that I've presented includes
> distribution of B. Thus, B's permission is needed.
> I'm trying to understand the conditions the copyright
> owner has attached to the copyright owner's offer of
> permission to distribute B (the conditions in the
> GPL). So, the conditions specified in the GPL are
> relevant to what someone needs to do in order to
> legally distribute A+B, without regard to whether
> A+B is has some special status as a protected
> copyrightable work (B's protectable status is enough).
I keep returning to contract obligations because under
copyright law there are only a limited set of exclusive
rights that may be licensed, namely to make copies,
prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform
and display. Where in the statute is there any
reference to an exclusive right to make a "work based
on the Program" or a "Larger Work"? How is a court to
interpret those phrases? Why should the court even try
to do so? Are those things more than a derivative work
or less? Why is the licensor's interpretation of those
phrases in any way binding upon licensees?
The GPL grants an unlimited right to make copies but a
conditional right to make derivative works (with some
other words in the license about a limited right to
make a "work based on the Program"). The only way a
judge can interpret that license is to determine whether
what is being made -- your A+B, for example,
where A is the GPL-licensed work -- involves making a
copy of A or creating a derivative work of A. If the
former, then the license is clear that there are no
reciprocal obligations. If the latter, then the
license is also clear that the author of A+B must
disclose his source code.
That's the question we've all been struggling with.
Does linking require merely the making of a copy or is
it the creation of a derivative work? We're now back
at square one.
How does the language you quoted from section 2 help
the judge perform that analysis? Why should the judge
care at all that those other words are in the license,
given that there is no proof whatsoever that the
licensee either read or assented to that extra
language?
If the GPL is just a copyright license then none of
that extra language matters. The only question is,
has a license been granted to make a copy or to create
a derivative work?
----
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05888.html
----
> OK, so I thought the GPL distinguished between the
> two - that having a GPL program (I'm not thinking of
> the kernel here or other things reasonably determined
> to be part of an "operating system", an allowance the
> GPL makes) on the same CD as non-GPL bits, in a
> situation such as a Red Hat Linux CD, was OK because
> it was "mere aggregation", which the GPL explicitly
> allows, and not a "collective work", which the GPL
> states *would* be under the GPL. Maybe "mere
> aggregation" has no meaning w/r/t copyright law, but
> am I mistaken in thinking the GPL makes the
> distinction?
I don't understand these subtle distinctions people are
reading into the GPL.
Section 2 of the GPL grants permission to "modify your
copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it."
In that context, I have never understood the reference
within that section to "the right to control the
distribution of ... collective works based on the
Program." A collective work is defined clearly in
copyright law and is different from a modified (or
derivative) work. One does not modify a work in the
course of creating a collective work.
If one merely copies the original work unchanged, that
falls under section 1 of the GPL, not section 2.
[end quoting]
I'd add that all those copies of publicaly available
[L]GPL works also fall under "first sale", and (in
addition, so to say), that the doctrine of copyright
misuse bars not only SCO's but also FSF's attempts
to extract rights to and/or impose "control" on non-
derivative works.
regards,
alexander.
*) E.g. see http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html
**) http://www.rosenlaw.com
--
"Tenth Defense: SCO's claims are barred by the
doctrine of copyright misuse." -- IBM
Sorry - static linking is not a compilation.
1. A compilation implies that you have access to
the elements of the compilation.
2. static linking does not give you access to the
library.
3. The GPL is NOT equivalent to the LGPL.
Since the GPL is NOT equal to the LGPL, you can't issue the GPL program with the LGPL library. That would require changing the licence of the library to GPL.
The LGPL allows dynamic linking with applications under different licences, since the library is separate. Static linking requires the library (or parts) to be issued WITH the application. And unless the application is under the SAME licence as the library, you can't combine it under one licence.
"Does static linking create a derivative work?"
Not relevent.
Static linking of a GPL program and an LGPL library is merging two items provided under different licences. You would have to convert one to the other, and since you don't have ownership of the LGPL library, you cannot change it's license.
> The LGPL allows ...
http://www.phptr.com/content/images/0131487876/samplechapter/0131487876_ch06.pdf
[quote]
The LGPL, therefore, is an anomaly -- a hybrid license
intended to address a complex issue about program
linking and derivative works. It doesn't solve that
problem but merely directs us back to the main event,
the GPL license itself.
[end quote]
I guess the idea is to simply convert LGPL'ed works to
the "plain" GPL (the LGPL allows this) and stick to the
OSI's much more reasonable (first sale aside for a
moment) interprepretation completely ignoring FSF's
politically motivated licensing smokescreens (I mean
their FAQ/quiz/essays/"legal notes"/manifestos/etc.)
regards,
alexander.
The LGPL does allow static linking with proprietary code. However, whatever license the proprietary code is under must specifically allow reverse engineering for the purposes of replacing the LGPL library at a later date.
Post a Comment
<< Home