[haiku-development] Re: INPUT / VOTE : --include-gpl-addons
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:35:26 +0200 CEST
Niels Reedijk <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> """b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
> thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
> under the terms of this License."""
>
> The 'viral' aspect of the GPL is in this statement. It circumvents
> the
> discussion you are having by claiming that any program that uses
> GPL'd
> code, must be completely GPL.
The problem here is that "uses" is not really defined. In any case, the
component using (not in GPL terms, just English) a GPL add-on is
neither part of that add-on (or vice versa), nor is it a derivative.
> Now the theoretical issue is whether add-ons are like modules
> (read:libraries) or whether they are independent apps that
> communicate
> with another independent app. (read on)
AFAICT that's from the FAQ, but not mentioned in the license, and as
such is just an opinion (IMO :-)).
In any case, the following is what needs to be checked (last paragraph
before section 3):
"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License."
The question is, if that can be translated to add-ons, too.
Practically, the means of communication is indeed just a technicality
(even if the FAQ hints in another direction, that's still not part of
the license).
If we would write an add-on that is using the ffmpeg executable, the
end result would be the same, but then the "mere aggregation" would
definitely be fulfilled (and you could also consider shell applications
as add-ons to the shell - they just communicate with each other as
mentioned in the FAQ).
In the end, add-ons are not actually taken into account by the license,
and we do not know how it would be judged in a trial.
Therefore, I think, if I get a "better don't do this" from the FSF, I
think we should follow Urias' suggestion, and ask the project in
question. I would assume that most projects choosing the GPL are only
concerned about missing improvements made to their software, and are
not interested in forbidding their use in a free sense.
Bye,
Axel.
Other related posts:
