'GPL encumbrance problems' (jdow)

[Mike McCarty]

jdow wrote:
> From: "Erwin Rol" <mailinglists at erwinrol.com>
> 
>> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 20:57 -0700, David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> jdow at earthlink.net wrote:
>>>
>>> > From: "Jeff Vian" <jvian10 at charter.net>
>>> >
>>> >> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 21:40 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
>>> >>
>>
>>
>>> Up until recently I worked for a company that developed and marketed 
>>> a closed source, Linux based, network monitoring product 
>>> (http://www.vericept.com).  The company lawyers saw no problem with 
>>> us building and selling a closed source product that included calls 
>>> to a variety of GPLed and LGPLed libraries.  As has been extensively 
>>> discussed over at Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net) and elsewhere on 
>>> the 'net, headers and interfaces are *not* protectable elements under 
>>> copyright law.  The only way the GPL kicks (via copyright law) in is 
>>> if you actually modify executable GPLed code for your product.  At 
>>> worst, you would then need to make only these changes to the GPLed 
>>> code available as source (there's also nothing that says the 
>>> maintainer has to accept your changes; just publishing them is 
>>> sufficient).
>>
>>
>> The GPL kicks in if you distribute your product. If your program needs a
>> GPL library the program is a derived work from that library and so if
>> you distribute that program you have to distribute it in a GPL
>> compatible way (for example by putting the program under the GPL).
>>
>> If you have a LGPL library the use of that library is not seen as a
>> derived work and hence you are free to choose the license for your
>> program. 
> 
> 
> What happens if I discover, after months of development, that some
> LGPLed library I used actually itself uses a GPLed library and was
> mis-licensed? I'm toast. This seems to me to be too big a risk for
> me to spend much of any time trying to make a living off GPL tainted
> software. I might try to make a reputation with it. But I'd not expect
> it to be the sole source of money to keep my computers powered let
> alone keep me powered.

Even if the library is properly LGPL, if you need to link with
*another* library, you must be able to ship that library. The
LGPL states flatly that you must provide all the parts necessary
to rebuild the program, including compilers and linkers (unless
they are commonly supplied with the target OS), and other
libraries. If you can't ship some other library in a form which
the end user can use to rebuild, and reverse engineer to fix
defects in the third parties' code, then you cannot distribute
your program. Carefully read clauses 5 and 6 of the LGPL.

This is intentional. Part of Richard Stallman's goal is the destruction
of capitalism in software development, which he views as some sort of
evil. I have exchanged some e-mails back in 1984-1985 with him. He's
some sort of social communist (though not very political).
Interestingly, he doesn't mind maintainers and distributers getting
paid. Only developers, and only objects to them being paid in certain
ways. I'm afraid I find his position rather difficult to understand,
let alone defend. But I think I *do* understand the GPL and LGPL (though
the latter has some pretty confusing claims in it).

I assure you, I shall never release any of my software under either
GPL or LGPL, since I disagree with the goals of both. I have
released some stuff into the public domain, and I have released
some stuff with source provided, but not redistributable unless
unchanged, and I have released stuff under NDA, and I have
released stuff as executable only, no permission to reverse
engineer. But never, never, never GPL nor LGPL.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!