From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Ricardo Galli <gallir@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL only modules
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:37:31 -0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <or64c96ius.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612181134260.3479@woody.osdl.org> (Linus Torvalds's message of "Mon\, 18 Dec 2006 11\:42\:47 -0800 \(PST\)")
On Dec 18, 2006, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> That said, I think they are still pushing the "you don't have any rights
> unless we give you additional rights explicitly" angle a bit too hard.
Maybe it's just a matter of perception. I don't see it that way from
the inside.
How about
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-2&id=2238
Would it help address your mis-perception?
> But I GUARANTEE you that it makes more sense than the "no rights"
> approach
Yeah, but that's a Straw Man.
> and I GUARANTEE you that it makes more sense than thinking that "ld
> is magic, and makes a derived work" approach.
I believe you and I have already shot down the 'ld-is-like-mkisofs'
argument.
>> In fact, it can't possibly be exempt by this paragraph in clause 2 of
>> the GPL:
>> In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
>> Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a
>> volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
>> work under the scope of this License.
> This is actually a red herring. The way the GPLv2 _defines_ "work" and
> "Program" is by derived "derived work".
No, that's how it defines 'work based on the Program', see the quoted
portion below.
> You're confused by _your_ interpretation of "work" and "Program". You
> think that "Program" means "binary", because that's you think normally.
I can't see where you drew that conclusion from, but it's an incorrect
conclusion. Program can denote the sources as much as the binaries.
> But the GPLv2 actually defines that "Program" is just the "derivative work
> under copyright law".
> Really. Go look. It's right there at the very top, in section 0.
/me looks again
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".)
> 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
> And in fact, it wouldn't make sense if it did, since you can use the GPL
> for other things than just programs (and people have).
People do many odd things. How do you define source code and object
code to other things that are not programs.
> So you _always_ get back to the question: what is "derivative"? And the
> GPLv2 doesn't actually even say anything about that, but EXPLICITLY says
> that it is left to copyright law.
Exactly. No disagreement here.
I'm not disputing this fact.
In the point you quoted above, I was only disputing your argument of
"mere aggregation" in the context of dynamic linking.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-18 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-16 18:27 GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] Ricardo Galli
2006-12-16 21:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-17 0:22 ` Ricardo Galli
2006-12-17 4:10 ` Theodore Tso
2006-12-17 13:54 ` GPL only modules Alexandre Oliva
2006-12-17 15:56 ` Ricardo Galli
2006-12-17 16:25 ` Kyle Moffett
2006-12-17 21:32 ` David Schwartz
2006-12-17 21:46 ` D. Hazelton
2006-12-18 15:47 ` Dave Neuer
2006-12-18 17:46 ` D. Hazelton
2006-12-18 21:01 ` Dave Neuer
2006-12-18 17:16 ` David Schwartz
2006-12-19 6:35 ` D. Hazelton
2006-12-19 16:39 ` David Lang
2006-12-18 19:41 ` Alexandre Oliva
2006-12-18 22:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-12-19 3:42 ` D. Hazelton
2006-12-20 1:02 ` Alexandre Oliva
2006-12-20 23:28 ` Scott Preece
2006-12-17 17:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-17 22:45 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-12-18 6:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-12-18 23:16 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-12-18 15:38 ` Dave Neuer
2006-12-18 17:02 ` Theodore Tso
2006-12-18 17:23 ` Dave Neuer
2006-12-18 19:27 ` Alexandre Oliva
2006-12-18 19:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-18 20:37 ` Alexandre Oliva [this message]
2006-12-18 20:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-18 21:23 ` David Schwartz
2006-12-18 22:35 ` Scott Preece
2006-12-19 1:29 ` David Schwartz
2006-12-19 16:55 ` Scott Preece
2006-12-20 0:09 ` Alexandre Oliva
2006-12-20 0:06 ` Alexandre Oliva
2006-12-18 22:06 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-12-18 23:28 ` Alexandre Oliva
2006-12-19 1:35 ` David Schwartz
2006-12-19 2:38 ` D. Hazelton
2006-12-19 12:42 ` Horst H. von Brand
2006-12-20 0:20 ` Alexandre Oliva
2006-12-18 23:52 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-12-18 23:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-19 0:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-12-19 1:39 ` David Schwartz
2006-12-19 4:20 ` Daniel Barkalow
2006-12-20 19:14 ` David Schwartz
2006-12-20 23:08 ` Scott Preece
2006-12-20 23:26 ` David Schwartz
2006-12-19 7:39 ` Giacomo A. Catenazzi
2006-12-19 7:40 ` Giacomo A. Catenazzi
2006-12-19 8:00 ` Sanjoy Mahajan
2006-12-19 13:09 ` Horst H. von Brand
2006-12-19 17:27 ` Sanjoy Mahajan
2006-12-20 1:06 ` Alexandre Oliva
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-12-14 0:32 GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] Greg KH
2006-12-14 0:43 ` Jonathan Corbet
2006-12-14 0:55 ` Greg KH
2006-12-14 4:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-14 15:46 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-12-14 17:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-14 17:08 ` Chris Wedgwood
2006-12-14 17:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-12-14 17:52 ` Chris Wedgwood
2006-12-14 18:09 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-12-18 10:28 ` GPL only modules Eric W. Biederman
2006-12-14 18:15 ` GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] Eric Sandeen
2006-12-14 18:39 ` Chris Wedgwood
2006-12-14 19:42 ` Scott Preece
2006-12-14 19:34 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-12-15 5:28 ` GPL only modules Alexandre Oliva
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=or64c96ius.fsf@redhat.com \
--to=aoliva@redhat.com \
--cc=gallir@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).