Re: GPL only modules

From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>,
	Ricardo Galli <gallir@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL only modules
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:06:18 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <458710DA.3080203@wolfmountaingroup.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612181242530.3479@woody.osdl.org>

Linus Torvalds wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>  
>
>>>In other words, in the GPL, "Program" does NOT mean "binary". Never has.
>>>      
>>>
>>Agreed.  So what?  How does this relate with the point above?
>>
>>The binary is a Program, as much as the sources are a Program.  Both
>>forms are subject to copyright law and to the license, in spite of
>>http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1
>>    
>>
>
>Here's how it relates:
> - if a program is not a "derived work" of the C library, then it's not 
>   "the program" as defined by the GPLv2 AT ALL.
>
>In other words, it doesn't matter ONE WHIT whether you use "ld --static" 
>or "ld" or "mkisofs" - if the program isn't (by copyright law) derived 
>from glibc, then EVEN IF glibc was under the GPLv2, it would IN NO WAY 
>AFFECT THE RESULTING BINARY.
>
>And I'm simply claiming that a binary doesn't become "derived from" by any 
>action of linking.
>
>Even if you link using "ld", even if it's static, the binary is not 
>"derived from". It's an aggregate.
>
>"Derivation" has nothing to do with "linking". Either it's derived or it 
>is not, and "linking" simply doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether 
>it's static or dynamic. That's a detail that simply doesn't have anythign 
>at all to do with "derivative work".
>
>THAT is my point. 
>
>Static vs dynamic matters for whether it's an AGGREGATE work. Clearly, 
>static linking aggregates the library with the other program in the same 
>binary. There's no question about that. And that _does_ have meaning from 
>a copyright law angle, since if you don't have permission to ship 
>aggregate works under the license, then you can't ship said binary. It's 
>just a non-issue in the specific case of the GPLv2.
>
>In the presense of dynamic linking the binary isn't even an aggregate 
>work.
>
>THAT is the difference between static and dynamic. A simple command line 
>flag to the linker shouldn't really reasonably be considered to change 
>"derivation" status.
>
>Either something is derived, or it's not. If it's derived, "ld", 
>"mkisofs", "putting them close together" or "shipping them on totally 
>separate CD's" doesn't matter. It's still derived.
>
>		Linus
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>  
>
Yep. We love you linus, keep going.

Also, we are taking over SCO's office space after the first of the year, 
since they have no one left. We will try to get that annoying eyesore of 
a sign taken off the building as soon as possible. They moved to 
Holliday, UT (or are moving there at present).

:-)

Jeff