[cc-community] GNU-GPL, makefiles, and non-distributed executables

Terry Hancock hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Mon Dec 17 21:47:37 EST 2007


Rob Myers wrote:
> Linking creates a single text in memory. This is different from the 
> examples you give. A concordance that *did* quote the entirety of "Lord 
> Of The Rings" would be more like a linked computer program than a 
> bibliography of scientific works would be.

Such a work would be a derivative, but the instructions for making it
would NOT be.

>>Yes and yes it does. But you can link a GPL work with any other thing
>>you please as long as you don't distribute ("use" is not restricted).
>>GNU also argues this, quite strongly, when defending the "freedom" of
>>the GPL's copyleft.
> 
> DLLs and object files must be distributed in order to be linked in the 
> scenario we are discussing.

Only for the proprietary work. And that work is ENTIRELY proprietary and
independent. It does not contain any GPL code, therefore GPL clearly
can't bind it in any way.

In Greg's case, the proposed distribution medium contains:

1) Proprietary object files -- which contain no GPL code.
2) GPL packages, which are unaltered.
3) Compiler and Linker software.
4) Scripts for compiling the GPL code and linking it with the object file.
5) Instructions for use.

Each is an independent work for copyright purposes, and thus combining
them on the disk is allowed under GPLv2, which uses a very broad
definition of "mere aggregation".

GPLv3 tries to tighten that up, so it is just possible that #4 and just
maybe #1 would not quite pass muster as "mere aggregation".

Of course, the only thing that means is that you have to send two CDs.

In order to seriously restrict you, GNU would have to forbid you from
even linking your private software with their code. But that would be a
serious betrayal of "Freedom 0" (use) and especially "Freedom 1" the
freedom to modify the code. So it would be hypocritical for them to do it.

And IMHO, it's unnecessary. The irritation for both developer and end
user of having to go through an extra step of compiling and linking
software during installation is probably reason enough to just release
the code under GPL.

(For example, I have now gone for about two years without 3D
acceleration on my computer because nVidia drivers are only available
this way, and as a result, I will never buy an nVidia product again!).

If it's not, then IMHO, Alice must be seriously earning her proprietary
rights in the work.

So while I don't think this kind of distribution is illegal, I do think
it is ill-advised, and I am therefore not threatened by it.

> This is different from coding up proprietary extensions in-house.

It is combining proprietary extensions written by someone else with the
code in-house. But that is also allowed.

> GNU have disagreed, and I doubt that NeXT agreed without consulting 
> their lawyers. But I agree that GPL 3 covers this better, among its many 
> other virtues.

We probably shouldn't speculate on NeXT's political reasoning, but I
would guess that they wanted to avoid the hassle, expense, and bad press
of being sued by GNU -- regardless of whether they thought they could
win the case once it came to court. That's a common enough business reason.

Please note that distributions which include binary Linux kernel modules
(e.g. for video drivers) are existing examples of this kind of
distribution. They are controversial and often viewed negatively, but
they're not a license violation.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com



More information about the cc-community mailing list