May I refer you to the gnu.org FAQs on GPL programs using proprietary
libraries:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SystemLibraryException
It says:
Can I link a GPL program with a proprietary system library?
(#SystemLibraryException
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SystemLibraryException>)
Both versions of the GPL have an exception to their copyleft,
commonly called the system library exception. If the
GPL-incompatible libraries you want to use meet the criteria for a
system library, then you don't have to do anything special to use
them; the requirement to distribute source code for the whole
program does not include those libraries, even if you distribute a
linked executable containing them.
The criteria for what counts as a “system library” vary between
different versions of the GPL. GPLv3 explicitly defines “System
Libraries” in section 1, to exclude it from the definition of
“Corresponding Source.” GPLv2 deals with this issue slightly
differently, near the end of section 3.
Neil, KN3ILZ
On 7/20/2024 8:24 AM, Jakob Ketterl DD5JFK wrote:
Hello Joe,
WSJT-X is a complete and independent program. Its full source code is
available to anyone. One of its many operating modes makes use of
short, uncomplicated exchanges with three independent programs
that are
licensed separately and made freely available for Amateur Radio use.
These separate, stand-alone executable programs are not open source.
I am kind of confused by this statement. There has been a number of
requests on this mailing list to split the WSJT-X frontend and make
the actual decoders available as a library, but they have all been
turned down. But when it comes to licensing, all of a sudden, I'm
supposed to see these as separate parts. I would like to say that in
the future, you should take better care to distinguish which parts
your software consists of. I'm pretty sure that most users will see
WSJT-X as a single package (it's a single download, and they only get
to see the one user interfaces).
I'd also like to point that your answer is not really taking all
aspects into account, the actual fallout of your decisions is bigger,
and I'd say you should definitely take action right now.
The problem is that on your website, you're currently offering binary
packages of WSJT-X (the overall package, not just the frontend), which
contain:
a) A copy of the superfox binaries
b) A copy of the GPL
c) A copyright declaration that states that "everything" is covered by
the GPL.
Just in case you're in doubt about the latter, this is the contents of
the copyright declaration included in the WSJT-X 2.7.0-rc6 Debian
package, downloaded 15 minutes ago:
Format:
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
Upstream-Name: wsjtx
Upstream-Contact: Joe Taylor <k...@arrl.net>
Source: https://wsjt.sourceforge.io/wsjtx.html
Files: *
Copyright: Copyright (C) 2001-2024 by Joe Taylor, K1JT.
License: GPL-3+
On Debian systems, the full text of the GNU General Public
License version 3 can be found in the file
`/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3'.
That is a the full extent of that file.
Since you do not intent to publish the source code of the superfox
binaries, I'd say that this is a clear violation of the GPL.
So as far as I can see, you should take the following actions as soon
as possible:
a) Find a license under which you can distribute the superfox
binaries. (Strictly speaking, this is optional, but if you don't
copyright defaults kick in, which may have further unwanted consequences)
b) Include that license with your binary distributions.
c) Make it clear which license applies to what files.
73s
Jakob DD5JFK
PS: In case you're wondering why I'm suggesting a certain urgency to
take action, consider this: I'm making these suggestions in an attempt
resolve these problems in your favor. If I were to take a different
perspective, I could also demand the release of the superfox sources
given that you are circulating binary distributions that claim those
binaries are released under GPL.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 9:07 PM Joe Taylor via wsjt-devel
<wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Dear Kenji-san,
Thank you for your interest in WSJT-X. We do not believe the license
terms for WSJT-X 2.7.0-RC5 and later are self-contradictory.
WSJT-X is a complete and independent program. Its full source
code is
available to anyone. One of its many operating modes makes use of
short, uncomplicated exchanges with three independent programs
that are
licensed separately and made freely available for Amateur Radio use.
These separate, stand-alone executable programs are not open source.
The following text is from "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU
Licenses", https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html :
"[P]ipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication
mechanisms normally used between two separate programs... [W]hen they
are used for communication, the modules normally are [considered]
separate programs."
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
On 7/19/2024 10:22 AM, Kenji Rikitake JJ1BDX via wsjt-devel wrote:
> I do appreciate all the efforts poured into the SuperFox Mode.
>
> Writing that, I'd like to state one thing:
>
> The current WSJT-X (2.7.0-RC5 and later) has a
self-contradictory license
> and that should be fixed ASAP.
>
> GPLv3 requires ALL binary code must be able to be produced/built
> from the distributed source code [1].
> Currently, the SuperFox binaries, namely foxchk/sftx/sfrx are
> unable to be built from the source code distributed as a part of
WSJT-X.
> This means the current state as of the 2.7.0-RC6 self-contradicts
> with the license being claimed.
> I would like this situation to be fixed ASAP.
>
> There are a few possible ways to fix this situation:
> by changing the license to allow the proprietary binaries,
> or separating the proprietary part (namely SuperFox Mode binaries),
> or making the source code of SuperFox Mode available with the
package.
> There might even be another way that doesn't come up to my mind.
>
> I do not want to start a bikeshed discussion of licensing.
> I simply would like the developers of WSJT-X to take this situation
> seriously and propose a practical solution.
>
> I hope WSJT-X would remain fully open-sources as it had been.
>
> 73
> Kenji Rikitake, JJ1BDX
>
> [1]:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeExtendedBinary
> <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeExtendedBinary>
>
> Quote:
>
> > I want to distribute an extended version of a GPL-covered
program in
> binary form. Is it enough to distribute the source for the
original version?
>
> > No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the
binary.
> Corresponding source means the source from which users can
rebuild the
> same binary.
>
> Part of the idea of free software is that users should have
access to
> the source code for *the programs they use*. Those using your
version
> should have access to the source code for your version.
>
> A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World by making
sure
> that improvement to a free program are themselves free. If you
release
> an improved version of a GPL-covered program, you must release the
> improved source code under the GPL.
>
> Unquote.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
