From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA30559; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:51:03 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA28944 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:51:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp-2.syd.swiftdsl.com.au (smtp-2.syd.swiftdsl.com.au [218.214.224.98]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with SMTP id i867ox39013210 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:51:01 +0200 Received: (qmail 17224 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2004 07:51:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO coltrane.mega-nerd.net) (218.214.64.136) by smtp-2.syd.swiftdsl.com.au with SMTP; 6 Sep 2004 07:51:09 -0000 Received: from coltrane (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coltrane.mega-nerd.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3A4E47B8E for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:50:56 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:50:56 +1000 From: Erik de Castro Lopo To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Omake] Re: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1 Message-Id: <20040906175056.11fbd33b.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> In-Reply-To: References: <413BB044.3000007@cs.caltech.edu> Organization: Erik Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 413C16E3.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 2004:99 cdt:99 gpl:01 gpl:01 wether:01 earns:99 wether:01 defence:99 linked:01 sep:01 linking:02 linking:02 nospam:97 wrote:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:54:09 -0500 (CDT) Brian Hurt wrote: > Having actually had a discussion with an IP lawyer over basically this > issue, fears of the GPL in this case are (I think) unfounded. > > First off, the GPL only covers, can only cover, derived works. The GPL- > nor any copyright license- can not "infect" anything other than derived > works. No license can- as a copyright holder, you only have rights over > the original work and derivitive works, you have no more rights than that, > period. So the question becomes one of what is a derived work. Wether or > not simply *linking* creates a derived work is one that has not been > answered authoritively. I think (and hope) that existing practice supports the idea that linking does create a derived work. I am the (sole) author of a library released under dual license; the GPL for linking with GPL compatibale code and a commercial use license allowing people to use the library in closed source applications. This commercial use license earns me money. The very fact that I give people an option (GPL or commercial) shows the intention that the library can only be used with closed source programs if a license is paid for. I am hoping that not even the slimiest lawyer would try to get around this. > This is why it's an open question as to wether simply linking > code makes the linked code "derivitive" enough for the GPL to cross the > threshold. If this becomes important, hire a lawyer. If you do decide to hire a lawyer, be aware of the large body of existing practice that would be used by the defence to uphold the linking/derived work connection. Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ "Linux is produced to be used, whereas the others are produced to be sold" -- Bobby D. Bryant ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners