Re: Licensing compatibility - a closed-source dependency

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 3 April 2013 11:25, Jan Hadáček <address@hidden> wrote:

> Is it possible to release my software provided that the binary blob
> is distributed separately and has to be downloaded from the website
> of it's authors by the end user?

No.

You wrote an oct-file that is a derivative work of both that blob and
Octave. Whether you or someone else distributes it is irrelevant.

> I don't think my software classifies as a derivative work of the
> binary library, since it could be easily replaced with a free
> implementation and will be in the future.

A hypothetical future free implementation does not override the fact
that you currently wrote it for the only existing non-free
implementation. The situation is more like this:

    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibsw

> Moreover, some limited use of my software is still possible without
> the binary blob.

You may release that part of your software, if you wish.

> I think my problem is an instance of this
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
> and therefore it should be legally OK to release my work. Am I right?

That question isn't about the GPL, but about free software in general.
As far as the GPL is concerned, non-free libraries are incompatible.
We have already seen a case similar to this one in Octave regarding
National Instruments libraries.

Instead, urge whoever created this library to allow you to use it
freely in Octave so that you can distribute all of your software.

- Jordi G. H.