Understanding the implication of GPL

[Chad Leigh]

On Mar 23, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Richard Taubo wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On 23. mar. 2007, at 22.10, Chad Leigh wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 23, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Richard Taubo wrote:
>>
>>> This situation seem to be the same as the previous situation. You  
>>> are still linking to GPL software.
>>
>> No you are not.
>>
>> "link" is not a pipe.  Link is the combining of object code into a  
>> single executable.  Or a single executable that links to dynamic  
>> libs.
>
> In this link: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=148162  
> Richard Stallman is quoted as saying:
> "We have a different interpretation of the situation. Connecting  
> modules through sockets or pipes does not necessarily mean they are  
> separate programs. In simple cases they are separate, but not when  
> they exchange complex data structures."
>
> You would have to read the full reasoning on the pae itself and  
> judge if the quote is taken out of context.
>
> Further down on the same page Linus is quoted as saying:
> "The GPL notion of "linking" is really nothing but a specific  
> technical way of trying to define "derived work". From a legal  
> standpoint, technical issues have some validity, but in the end the  
> _only_ thing that matters is whether it is derived or not."
>
> (Linus is also quoted as saying: "Feel free to consider this email  
> (in its entirety, not snipped into pieces) as being public, so if  
> you think you want to post it, go ahead."  I guess I kind of  
> violated that by using snippets – so read it yourself and make your  
> own judgement :-)

IMNSHO, but nevertheless MO, if the programs being connected through  
pipes stand alone and are used or can be used independently or by  
other unrelated processes,  than they are not derived works.  For  
example, including the diff program and writing a script that pipes  
some output to it.  "diff" has its own life outside of this use.  But  
if you create a bunch of interdependent processes that use pipes to  
pass data, the commie RMS might be able to make a case.

But including a piece of GPL code on your OS distribution does not  
threaten the whole distribution unless that code is relied on for the  
normal function of that OS.

The above is why you avoid GPL and other viruses.

>
>> ps:  why was this posted to -admin ?
>
> My initial question was this:
> "Now I wonder: How can OS X contain the program diff when the the  
> GPL states that the license also handles derivative work:  ". . . a  
> work containing the Program or a portion of it . . ." "
>
> I am sorry if I indeed posted this to the wrong list.

I am not a list mom, but I would have guessed -talk or -dev might  
have been better places.

Chad