--- On Wed, 5/13/09, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermos <address@hidden> wrote:
From: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermos <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Windows?
To: "Sergei Steshenko" <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden, "Przemek Klosowski" <address@hidden>
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 4:02 PM
2009/5/13 Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>:
That's why I'm talking about static vs dynamic linking
- dynamic linking
ensures the GPL code is _separable_ from
GPL-incompatible code.
This is a tired issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#The_GPL_in_court
The FSF's opinion is that dynamic linking is a derived
work. Others
disagree. It hasn't been tested in court, so who knows if
it really is
or not.
However, since no one has attempted to contest this either
by dynamic
linking and contesting that it is not a derived work, it is
de facto
the working interpretation of the GPL that a
dynamically-linked work
falls under the terms of the GPL.
That's all there is to it.
- Jordi G. H.
It doesn't matter it's derivative work in this case.
GPL mandates how you _distribute_ source + binaries, but _not_ how you
_use_ them.
http://docforge.com/wiki/GPL :
"Freedom to run the program, for any purpose.".
So, I do not disagree with FSF.
Do you want me to again find in the GPL FAQ explicit permission to link
with GPL-incompatible code in house ?
For example, I recently built ffmpeg (LGPL, executable may be GPL).
Its configure explicitly allows to choose non-free codecs. I chose both
LGPL _and_ non-free codesc.
This is what it shows:
"
install/ffmpeg-0.5/binsh/ffplay -L
FFplay version 0.5, Copyright (c) 2003-2009 Fabrice Bellard, et al.
configuration: --enable-bzlib --enable-swscale --enable-shared --enable-gpl --enable-nonfree --enable-x11grab --enable-vdpau --enable-fastdiv --enable-hardcoded-tables --prefix=/mnt/sdb8/sergei/AFSWD_debug/install/ffmpeg-0.5
libavutil 49.15. 0 / 49.15. 0
libavcodec 52.20. 0 / 52.20. 0
libavformat 52.31. 0 / 52.31. 0
libavdevice 52. 1. 0 / 52. 1. 0
libswscale 0. 7. 1 / 0. 7. 1
built on May 11 2009 02:16:42, gcc: 4.2.1 (SUSE Linux)
This version of FFplay has nonfree parts compiled in.
Therefore it is not legally redistributable.
".
So, I am _not_ distributing the binary, but I _am_ using it at home.
And if anybody asks, I _will_ provide him/her with a script (part of which,
by the way, is GPL; it's the same script I'm using to build 'octave') that
builds ffmpeg from source the same way I does it for me. This is like
distributing instructions - see the reply JWE got from licensing engineer.
And ffmpeg team did _not_ distribute such a binary too.
Similar situation was with QEMU/KQEMU while/when KQEMU was _not_ GPL. The
project site explicitly stated that precompiled KQEMU could _not_ be
distributed with QEMU, but everybody was free to build KQEMU from source
on his/her computer from source and use it with QEMU.
'octave' _can_ be built in-house with incompatible linear algebra package,
again, it can _not_ be distributed, but it _can_ be used.
Regards,
Sergei.