[haiku-development] Re: INPUT / VOTE : --include-gpl-addons
- From: Urias McCullough <umccullough@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:06:30 -0700
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Axel Dörfler<axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Reading through the FAQ, I'm pretty sure many projects are not aware of
> the implications of having chosen the GPL, at least not to the extent
> the FSF believes it would have. To me, it is only important what the
> license text says, not what someone (even the author) wants to read
> into it. And since this is a license it's what actually counts.
Rene pointed out another concern to me, which I hadn't fully realized
or thought about.
Even if we build Haiku with GPL code, and portions of Haiku are
considered "derivative works" of the GPL code, thus making those parts
of Haiku licensed under the terms of GPL... And even if the original
sources do not need to be changed to GPL....
Anyone who compiles an application using that GPL'd version of Haiku
that links to those GPL-licensed peices (libmedia.so for example)
would also be subject to the GPL.
I'm not entirely/totally convinced this can be enforced, but I'm
willing to admit this could be an issue. The reason I can't see how it
would be enforced is that if that same person build a GPL-free version
of Haiku, and compiled their application with it and released that
version, it would not require them to release their application under
GPL. Thus, the enforcibility of this ends up being based on what
version of Haiku the application was compiled on/for... bleh.
If such confusing issues as this muddy up the waters, I am fully
willing to revert my position and suggest that we move the
GPL-encumbered add-ons out of Haiku directly, and release them as
separately compiled/distributed binaries which the user can add to
their Haiku installation as desired.
> But anyway, since I haven't heard back from the FSF again yet, I would
> just follow Urias' suggestion, and ask the projects in question about
> their intentions of having chosen the GPL (and if they would be okay
> with an exception for us).
>
> Who's going to ask whom?
I can put together email for the liba52 guys at least, explaining our
position, and asking their advice. If they are of the opinion that
Haiku's media kit, or whatever, must also be released under the terms
of the GPL, then I think we'll have less ground to stand on moving
forward. Even if we were totally legal, we have no good reason to
upset the developers of the code we have utilized, as I believe we
have no intentions to create a disruption in the Open Source community
over such a small issue :)
Would someone else like to review it privately before I send it? or
shall I publish it here?
>> The FAQs I linked to above make exactly that distinction. And no, the
>> end
>> result would not be quite the same, at least not in terms of
>> efficiency/performance.
>
> Yes, the FAQ. Not the license - this makes this non-existent for a
> lawyer.
Right, the FAQ on FSF is mostly an opinion piece based on the FSF
interpretation of the license. I would consider this a somewhat
"biased" view, TBH.
- Urias
Other related posts:
