storkel@hijol.shell.com (S. Storkel) (12/30/89)
In article <8912201209.AA03583@wheat-chex> tower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes: > > Wrong. If your program requires GNU source to be linked in, it's all > covered by the GPL. > > thanx -len You know, I thought I had everything clear until I read this posting. Suppose I write a program and it requires a version of getopt. What happens if I wrap all of my object code into a big archive and distribute it with a note saying "You must link the code with a version of getopt before it will run. Try something like: ld ...". If I distribute something in this fashion and Joe User happens to link in Gnu Getopt it doesn't seem like I'm breaking the GPL. It sounds like it's Joe's fault to me. If I charge $800 million for the object code and don't provide source I'm not going to be in violation of the GPL just because an end user linked my code with some Gnu code. The same principle could be used to distribute stuff that required Libg++ or grammers that need to be run through Bison. Am I correct in thinking that the GPL hasn't been violated until Joe User links my code with Gnu code and then starts to distribute the complete package? If so, why are people so pissed off about the GPL? Personally, I think the GPL is a Good Thing and I wouldn't resort to the method described above but the people who want to be bone heads still have an out - they can write a little installation script that links their object code with everything under the sun... -- Scott Storkel storkel@rice.edu BLUware, Shell Development Company, Bellaire Research Center P.O. Box 481, room 2202, Houston, Texas 77001 (713-663-2993)
rodney@dali.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (12/30/89)
>>>>> On 29 Dec 89 19:38:01 GMT, storkel@hijol.shell.com (S. Storkel) said:
S.> [...] but the people who want to be bone heads still have an out -
S.> they can write a little installation script that links their
S.> object code with everything under the sun...
no pun intended of course.
--
Rodneywbailey@oracle.com (Bill Bailey) (01/05/90)
In article <STORKEL.89Dec29133801@hijol.shell.com>, storkel@hijol.shell.com (S. Storkel) writes: > Suppose I write a program and it requires a version of getopt. What > happens if I wrap all of my object code into a big archive and > distribute it with a note saying "You must link the code with a > version of getopt before it will run. Try something like: ld ...". If > I distribute something in this fashion and Joe User happens to link in > Gnu Getopt it doesn't seem like I'm breaking the GPL. If you don't use any of the Gnu specific extensions to getopt() then I don't see how your code could fall under the GPL in the above scenario. That is, if the ATT version of getopt() could just as easily be linked in, then it is ludicrous to think that someone could suddenly find his code copylefted just because someone else decided to link his libraries with gnu code. The programmer who distributed his object libraries might know nothing about gnu, might never have seen any gnu code, might never have even heard of gnu in the first place. So how could his code fall under copyleft? If FSF'ers claim that it still falls under copyleft, then I assert that they are on very shakey legal ground which would never hold up in court. But on the other hand, isn't this a tremendous loophole in the GPL? Moving to the gcc and gnu C library issue, can't I as a programmer ship my object libraries with a Makefile for on-site linking and say "please link with any ansi C conforming C library." Again, I might never have even heard of gnu much less seen any gnu code so how can I be held accountable to copyleft if someone to whom I sell my object libraries happens to link them with the gnu C library? And, for the record, I agree with Storkel that forcing copyleft on people just because they link with gnu's C library is subversive to at least one facet of the gnu project. It will seriously detract from people's willingness to use gcc. Thus people will continue to use expensive, proprietary compilers. This won't advance the state of the art and it won't do away with people re-inventing the software wheel. This whole "linking with the gnu C library" issue is confusing to everyone. I just wish FSF would come out with a clear decision about using gcc, the gnu C library and copyleft which either states: a) using gcc and/or the gnu C library on your code means your code falls under copyleft. b) you may use gcc and the gnu C library without having to worry about copyleft. The ONLY way your code can become copylefted is if you DELIBERATELY copyleft it yourself. -bill