On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 01:46:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > FooCorp doesn't do any linking with GPLed code in these > scenarios. Further, the linking is only done on the users machine, in > a manner explicitly allowed by the copyright holders of both pieces > of code (the GPL allows you to do pretty much whatever if you don't > distribute; and we can presume FooCorp doesn't mind you linking with A > in the hypothetical).
A user is extremely unlikely to come up with the idea to combine random piece of code B from FooCorp with random piece of GPLed code A from Debian. So, if there's a lot of users doing this, there must be a reason for it. > > in this case, you're describing the creation of a derivative work which > > violates the license on the original work. > > No, I'm describing the creation of a derivative work in a manner that > violates the spirit of the license on the original work, but appears > not to violate the letter. That appearance requires ignorance of some of the relevant details. > For concreteness, let's assume that "A" is an SSL/TLS library, and > "B" is some random SSL using thing, maybe a non-free application > for accessing your bank account. We can use gnutls for the GPL > implementation of A, and OpenSSL for the non-GPL implementation of A. Ok, so foothing + gnutls represents the illegal work. > For the sake of argument, further assume that gnutls and openssl are > binary-compatible (ie, both provide libssl.so.0), and conflict. [0] > > FooCorp happens to be a BSD shop, and uses OpenSSL for their > development. They also happen to be generally nice guys, and so also > build .debs for their product. It's non-free only because the bank > they built the program for is scared of making the source publically > available. > > Assume the package relationships look like: > > B Build-Depends: openssl-dev > B Build-Conflicts: gnutls > > B Depends: libssl0.9.6 | gnutls0.9.6 Ok, so FooCorp is specifying that foothing + gnutls be built. > FooCorp builds the package. They end up with a program that works > without having touched any GPLed software. "touched" isn't a copyright issue. FooCorp is causing the distribution of an illegal work. > Who are you claiming has violated the GPL? FooCorp, who've done their > development with LGPLed and BSDed libraries and had the gall to run > sed over their Depends: line? Yep. > * Two packages, libA and B, both non-free. Distributed separately > by FooCorp as .debs. License is "Do what you want with it, just > don't give copies to anyone else." Ok, no redistribution. > * Independently, someone thinks libA is cool, and does an clean room > implementation that's compatible at both binary and source levels, > creating libA-gpl. It's uploaded to Debian. It Conflicts: with > libA. That's not reasonable. libA isn't distributable by Debian, so there's no reason for that Conflicts. > Who, exactly, has done anything illegal here, or in contravention of > the GPL? I'd need a lot more detail (beyond what I clipped out) about how this could possibly happen. > Who's done something illegal here, and what precisely was it? Is > developing non-free clones of GPLed software illegal? Distributing them such that many people are building illegal derived copies is certainly illegal. > If so, some non-free companies might be interested in exactly how > you've managed to make it illegal, so they can do away with annoying > things like Samba. Or is it illegal for users to do some things with > GPLed software even in the privacy of their own homes? That too, though none of the examples you presented here made that particularly relevant. FYI, -- Raul
