Re: Bug#189164: libdbd-mysql-perl uses GPL lib, may be used by GPL-incompatible apps
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 19:19, Steve Langasek wrote: > My question is, how is a package that depends on DBD::mysql materially > different from a compiled program that links dynamically against > libmysqlclient? A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''. (Title 17 USC, Sec. 101) I can see how it can be argued that dynamic linking is creating a derivative work, because it actually involves copying _very small_ amounts of the library into the executable. I'm not sure if I agree with that; but let's assume it true for a moment. Now, we're talking about a perl script that contains _no_ part of the other work. It's hard to see how it could --- by including no part of the work whatsoever --- be a derivative work. Sure, it gets some functionality from it, through a standardized API, which works with several databases. If you think that is a creation of a derivative work (and thus violates the GPL), then I have a much bigger GPL violation for you to worry about. It's with an interpreter known as "bash". Many "bash" scripts rely on functionality provided by "bash" modules such as "grep", "gawk", and even "tar". Why is this OK, if the DBI/DBD stuff isn't? "The mechanisms are different; the effect is the same." I've even heard rumors of a program which links against GPL libraries and yet depends on functionality provided by modules with names like "openssl.preinst" which are apparently under the OpenSSL license, which is not GPL compatible. Oh, yeah, and there is even that apache-ssl module for that relies on OpenSSL's x509 stuff. Once again, "the mechanisms are different; the effect is the same." [ Sorry for being so sarcastic in the last paragraph. But we really need to decide when program A benefiting from features of program B creates a derivative work, if ever. ] http://www.pbwt.com/Attorney/files/ravicher_1.pdf http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6366 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the F DL
Yven Johannes Leist wrote: On Saturday 19 April 2003 18:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Not if people don't second my motion, or propose something similar. > It may be that we're content to complain but lack the will to act. For what it is worth, as a memeber of the silent lurkers, I agree with and would second your proposal. As one of the even more silent lurkers I'd like to add my voice to that too. Actually I'm *very* glad that so many folks on d-l are actively working on/thinking about this issue, as I see the FSF heading into a very unfortunate direction with this invariant section stuff. Cheers, Yven On the page "http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html"; I found : "The GFDL is meant as a way to enlist commercial publishers in funding free documentation without surrendering any vital liberty. The "cover text" feature, and certain other aspects of the license that deal with covers, title page, history, and endorsements, are included to make the license appealing to commercial publishers for books whose authors are paid. To improve the appeal, I consulted specifically with staff of publishing companies, as well as lawyers, free documentation writers, and the community at large, in writing the GFDL." Then, why don't have two license : the GFDL for commercial publishers; and a "community GFDL" (without the problems of the actual GFDL) for free documentation writers and non commercial publishers. The writer, however, 'll be able to choose.
Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the F DL
Yven Johannes Leist wrote: On Saturday 19 April 2003 18:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Not if people don't second my motion, or propose something similar. > It may be that we're content to complain but lack the will to act. For what it is worth, as a memeber of the silent lurkers, I agree with and would second your proposal. As one of the even more silent lurkers I'd like to add my voice to that too. Actually I'm *very* glad that so many folks on d-l are actively working on/thinking about this issue, as I see the FSF heading into a very unfortunate direction with this invariant section stuff. Cheers, Yven On the page "http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html"; I found : "The GFDL is meant as a way to enlist commercial publishers in funding free documentation without surrendering any vital liberty. The "cover text" feature, and certain other aspects of the license that deal with covers, title page, history, and endorsements, are included to make the license appealing to commercial publishers for books whose authors are paid. To improve the appeal, I consulted specifically with staff of publishing companies, as well as lawyers, free documentation writers, and the community at large, in writing the GFDL." Then, why don't have two license : the GFDL for commercial publishers; and a the "community GFDL" (without the problems of the actual GFDL) for free documentation writers and non commercial publishers. The writer, however, 'll be able to choose.
Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the F DL
On Saturday 19 April 2003 18:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500, > >> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> > > Not if people don't second my motion, or propose something similar. > > It may be that we're content to complain but lack the will to act. > For what it is worth, as a memeber of the silent lurkers, I > agree with and would second your proposal. As one of the even more silent lurkers I'd like to add my voice to that too. Actually I'm *very* glad that so many folks on d-l are actively working on/thinking about this issue, as I see the FSF heading into a very unfortunate direction with this invariant section stuff. Cheers, Yven -- Yven Johannes Leist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.leist.beldesign.de
Re: UnrealIRCd Legal Status
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:10:10 -0800 (PST), Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Roger Ward wrote: >> Thanks Henning & Mark for the replies - sorry I had to ask yet again, >> but I use this and hate to not be able to Do What I Want with the >> source. Its sad there is not a way it would work out. > >Have you contacted the upstream? It's always possible they'd be willing >to allow distribution under pure GPL (especially if they're using any GPL >code themselves). Well, they have been contacted back in October 2002 and have said that they would change the EULA. Since they haven't done this in half a year, I must come to the conclusion that they are not interested in having their software reaching wide spread usage. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
