Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

FSF's brief #37 in Wallace v FSF:

> In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
> copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
> GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
> under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based
> on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on
> a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
> work under the scope of this License."

[... walter_oak_night's FSF GPL FAQ ... FAQ as Fact ...]

Here's more. FSF's director and legal counsel Moglen speaks.

http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL+-+page+2/2008-1082_3-6028495-2.html

<quote>

One of the questions with the GPL is about how tightly you may link 
GPL code with non-GPL code, for example, when you compile a GPL program 
and it uses other code in a software library. Have you done anything 
to define how tightly GPL code may be linked with non-GPL code? Under 
what circumstances is that permitted and not permitted?

Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we 
believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked 
to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely 
optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under 
the GPL and must be released.

</quote>

So much about "the GPL rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights". To quote day5done,

<quote>

The GPLv3 states:

"2. Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the Program. The output from running it is
covered by this License only if the output, given its content,
constitutes a work based on the Program. This License
acknowledges your rights of "fair use" or other equivalent, as
provided by copyright law."

Anyone see the words "This License explicitly affirms your
*unlimited permission* to run the Program"?

When you link dynamically to GPL'd code you are "running"
(executing) the GPL'd Program in every sense of the word. The
linked code is object code that is executed in memory.

Moglen states: "We reasserted that code dynamically linked to
GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely
optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work
under the GPL and must be released."

Since when does "unlimited permission" mean "--is part of the
source code of the work under the GPL and must be released."?

I thought "unlimited permission" meant "unlimited permission".
Hmmmmm.

Perhaps Eben Moglen is drooling down his Gerber bib again...

Somehow your proprietary object code being executed in memory
is magically transformed into GPL'd source code. -- Sounds somewhat
like SCO claiming "all your code is mine".

Do you suppose the wife and kids also get GPL'd?

</quote>

Now, back to quoting the Defender of the GPL:

<quote>

One specific area where the linking question arises is in the 
Linux kernel, where proprietary video drivers loaded are loaded 
as modules. Another one might be the use of a network driver 
that relies on proprietary firmware that is loaded from an 
operating system. (Such firmware, sometimes called "blobs," are 
strings of hexadecimal digits loaded from the operating system 
kernel into the hardware device to enable it to run.)

Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were 
pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't 
link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or 
statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in 
their license terms.

</quote>

I just wonder under what "impure" GPL license terms do you think 
Moglen thinks ("in all good faith") the Linux kernel is developed 
currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has 
nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space).

Any thoughts?

Even if you have any, then how does that play out regarding what
the FSF is telling to the judge in Iniana...

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050622221934277

"The GNU/Linux operating system is probably the best known example 
 of a computer program that has been developed using the free 
 software model, and is licensed pursuant to the GPL."
                                             ^^^^^^^

<?>

regards,
alexander.