Re: gEDA-user: firmware and the GPL license

[DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > So if I write a proprietary program the uses the Motif widget set
> > and I license it with very restrictive terms and sell it to a user.
> > Now lets say that user one day decides to install a GPL'd
> > Motiff library (lesstiff) on his system and my code is dynamically linked
> > to it.  I don't think my code is now GPL'd.  As the author of
> > the software I have no control over what my code is dynamically
> > linked to.
> 
> It works because Lesstif is LGPL, not GPL.

No, it works because the person doing the linking (or even requiring
the linking) is not distributing the derived work.  The GPL doesn't
prohibit any non-distribution uses.

> "The libXm and libMrm libraries are copyright the Free Software Foundation,
> and are released under the LGPL,

This means that if you wrote a proprietary program that used the
Lesstif widgets, you'd have to ensure that the user could rebuild and
replace the Lesstif portions and still use your application.  Since
the OP did NOT use Lesstif, that doesn't apply.

> I see your point about the source being out of your control after
> distribution though. I hate legalese, and couldn't easily find the right
> section of the GPL - so don't really know how that works.

It's simple.  The GPL governs how you redistribute GPL'd code.  The OP
didn't redistribute GPL'd code, so the GPL doesn't apply.

> Why is the GPL so long and complex???

Because the lawyers expect it to be so.  And, it's not that complex,
nor is it that long for what it does.

> > I think this is very clear.  I can distribute them both but must make
> > clear the DLL and the main program are "separate works"
> 
> Just saying they are separate works doesn't make it so. If this loophole
> were correct, then we'd have a lot more people using it.

Right, it's not so.

However, the GPL has an exception for libraries that are normally
distributed with the operating system or its development tools, which
is the case that normally applies with, for example, glibc, gtk, or
lesstif (at least, for Linux systems).

Also, if a program has two parts that are both GPL and talk through a
well-known interface (such as a GIMP plug-in), a third party writing a
proprietary plug-in does not affect the license of the original
two-part software.

> I'm not sure anything stops the user compiling it that way, or
> whether it puts the user doing so in breach of the GPL license they
> received that linked library under by doing so.

The user can do whatever they want.  The GPL places NO RESTRICTIONS on
use.  However, such a linked program could not be legally shared with
anyone else.


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user