[ba-ohs-talk] More bad news about the GPL License: Fwd: [Gxl] GCC Licencing and XML extracts
I think the plot keeps getting thicker: if my read is correct (jump in and
correct me if I am wrong), connecting to GPL software through a socket
means your software must be GPL'd as well. A snipped from the Stallman
quote is "but not when they exchange
complex data structures." (01)
What is a "complex data structure?" (02)
I wonder if that means that any software that runs on the GPL'd Linux must
be GPL'd as well. (03)
Any thoughts? (04)
Jack (05)
>From: James Michael DuPont <mdupont777@yahoo.com>
>To: cppx@swag.uwaterloo.ca, dmm@iam.unibe.ch, gxl@uni-koblenz.de
>X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-perl11-milter (http://amavis.org/)
>X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-perl11-milter (http://amavis.org/)
>Subject: [Gxl] GCC Licencing and XML extracts
>Sender: gxl-admin@uni-koblenz.de
>X-BeenThere: gxl@uni-koblenz.de
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6
>List-Help: <mailto:gxl-request@uni-koblenz.de?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:gxl@uni-koblenz.de>
>List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.uni-koblenz.de/mailman/listinfo/gxl>,
> <mailto:gxl-request@uni-koblenz.de?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: GXL (Graph Exchange Language) Mailinglist <gxl.uni-koblenz.de>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.uni-koblenz.de/mailman/listinfo/gxl>,
> <mailto:gxl-request@uni-koblenz.de?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mailhost.uni-koblenz.de/pipermail/gxl/>
>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 02:28:46 -0800 (PST)
>
>Dear GXX-XML, GXL and DMM Group,
>
>For the past three years, I have been working on a
>project to create a object oriented interface to the
>GCC compiler, the GCC Node Introspector
>(http://introspector.sourceforge.net/).
>I brought up the issue of licencing yesterday on the
>gcc mailling list, and in emails to stallman and
>torvalds.
>You might be interested in the results.
>
>It turns out that the processing of the output of gcc
>can be considered a derived work of the gcc.
>just because it is going through a network/file or
>memory does not make is not derived.
>
>I hope that you will take the time to look at the
>thread on gcc at :
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-02/msg01792.html
>
>or on perlmonks at
>http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=148162
>
>1. I wrote to this topic to Richard Stallman.
>Richard Stallman said to me in the question if the
>data exchange over the network is not linking and
>therefore not covered by the GPL
>"We have a different interpretation of the situation.
>Connecting modules through sockets or pipes does not
>necessarily mean they are separate programs. In simple
>cases they are separate, but not when they exchange
>complex data structures."
>
>That would support the idea that all these are derived
>works and fall under the GPL.
>
>2. Linus Torvalds said :
> >Feel free to consider this email (in its >entirety,
>not snipped into pieces) as being >public, so if you
>think you want to post it, go >ahead.
> >The GPL notion of "linking" is really nothing but >a
>specific technical way of trying to define >"derived
>work".
> >From a legal standpoint, technical issues have >some
>validity, but in the end the _only_ thing >that
>matters is whether it is derived or not. >Linking is
>only one (strong) indicator that it is >indeed
>derived. There are others. There are
> >counter-indicators as well, of course, one of >them
>being "previous work" (thus my willingness, >for
>example, to have binary modules that were >basically
>derived from SCO device drivers that >existed prior to
>Linux - one of the original >impetuses for the module
>interface).
> >And intent matters.
> >Linus
>
>
>Hope that you find that interesting.
>mike
>
>
>
>=====
>James Michael DuPont
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
>http://greetings.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>gxl mailing list
>gxl@uni-koblenz.de
>http://mailhost.uni-koblenz.de/mailman/listinfo/gxl (06)