Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] GNURadio and GPL licensing issues

[John Ackermann N8UR]

I always jump into these conversations with some hesitation, but here 
goes...

You've hit on one of the gray areas in the GPL. There's a sizable group 
of folks (including me) who think that the GPL's interpretation what 
constitutes a "program" subject to the GPL goes beyond what copyright 
law recognizes as a derivative work (or in some situations, a compilation).

If you analyze the GPL is purely as a copyright license, which I think 
is the FSF's intent, you need to determine whether a program constitutes 
a derivative work under the copyright statute, and the language you 
quoted about semantics being "intimate enough" is in my view too broad. 
The more accepted view is that a derivative work is "based on or 
incorporates" the original work," and is not merely "intimately 
connected" with it.

Of course, none of this has yet been decided by a court, so in the end 
the FSF view could prevail (if the question ever comes up).

John

PS -- in my day job, I'm a lawyer who spends a fair bit of time on 
copyright and licensing issues. However, that and a dollar will buy you 
a cup of (non-Starbucks) coffee, but won't tell you how this issue will 
ultimately be decided!!!

----

Krzysztof Kamieniecki wrote:

> From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
> <quote>
> By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are 
> communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. 
> So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are 
> separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are 
> intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too 
> could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger 
> program.
> <quote/>
>
> My concern arises because of the statement "...But if the semantics of 
> the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal 
> data structures, ..."
>
> What does this mean in terms of GNURadio?
>
> I believe there is a possibility of eventually having very complex 
> commands issued to a GPL SDR front end, so I'm hoping to get a 
> consensus on what limits comply with the "spirit" of GPL and the goals 
> of GNURadio.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Krys
>
> David Nesting wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 10:12:29PM -0500, Krzysztof Kamieniecki wrote:
> >
> > > blocks. This server program transmits an MPEG2 transport stream 
> > > through a TCP/IP socket and accepts commands through another TCP/IP 
> > > socket. Then you write a proprietary client program that connects to 
> > > this ATSC receiver server through the TCP/IP ports. The ATSC 
> > > receiver would definitely have to licensed under GPL. What about the 
> > > client program? Would this depend on what type of API the ATSC 
> > > server has?
> >
> >
> >
> > The GPL only cares about "derivative works" in the copyright sense.
> > If your client application cannot be considered a derivative work of
> > the original GPLed application, then the GPL does not apply to it.
> > The goal of the GPL is not to "infect" other applications. The goal is
> > to protect copyrighted works licensed under the GPL. If your activities
> > don't infringe on the rights of the copyright holders whose work is
> > licensed under the GPL, then there's no issue.
> >
> > So basically, if your application communicates with a GPLed application
> > merely through an API or network interface, and doesn't need to use 
> > GPLed
> > code to do that, then you're in the clear and can do whatever you want
> > with your application.
> >
> > If this weren't so, then web browsers would be GPL-infringing the moment
> > they requested a web page from a GPL-licensed web server.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > David