GPL vs BSD Licence

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at toybox.placo.com
Fri Oct 29 22:48:52 PDT 2004



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids at webmaster.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 9:25 AM
> To: tedm at toybox.placo.com; chat at freebsd.org
> Cc: TM4525 at aol.com

> 	Since the linking occurs *after* the distribution, it's
> part of use. How a
> work is used, after its made and distributed, can't make it a derived work
> of another work.

That is one of the arguments.  But, the GPL is concerned with distribution.
I think this has been raised before with them.  I think that the scenario
was, if I make a program that dynamically links into GPL, then I distribute
both my program and the GPL code that it links into, do I have to put my
program under GPL?  I think their answer was yes - they argued that when
the linking takes place and who links it is immaterial, and that the fact
that your program cannot run without their stuff means that when your code
is running, that your program and their stuff become as a single program.

This is why they created the LGPL.

>
> 	If I write a piece of code that uses a defined interface,
> it's utterly
> preposterous to argue that it is derivative from an
> *implementation* of that
> interface, since it could be used with *any* implementation of that
> interface.
>

And if you found some non-GPL program that created the exact same interface
as your program needs, and distributed it and your program together, then
all this is a moot issue.

> 	It is, of course, derivative of the interface itself, which is why I
> clearly specified that you should use your own interface.
>
> 	DS
>
>
>



More information about the freebsd-chat mailing list