[sword-devel] Closed source exploitation of open source works (a GPL loophole)

Wed, 09 May 2001 16:21:14 -0700

At 08:49 AM 5/10/2001 +1000, you wrote:
>Chris Little wrote:
>
> > ...
> > It might be a bit slower than most front ends, but you could use
> > ActiveDiatheke to build a front end with most of the same capabilities as
> > BibleCS, GnomeSword, BibleTime or iraeneus.  The big difference would be
> > that the author of such a program would have no need to release his work
> > under GPL because it is not modifying or even statically linking Sword
> > derived code.
> >
> > So . . .
> >
> > What's our answer to this loophole in the GPL?  Do we find a more
> > restrictive license than GPL under which to release ActiveDiatheke (and
> > probably Sword in general since anyone could make a similar component and
> > license under GPL, allowing close source use)?  We've considered switching
> > to LGPL, so should we just ignore this issue since it meshes just fine with
> > the intent behind LGPL.  Should we allow ActiveDiatheke (and similar) to go
> > under GPL and serve as a the only means for closed source use rather than
> > putting Sword under LGPL?  Should I just pretend I didn't write it and
> > delete it from my hard drive so that we don't have to deal with the 
> issue at
> > all? :)
>
>My understanding of the letter of the GPL here is that it is ambiguous - it
>does not specify issues relating to linking.  My understanding of the 
>spirit of
>the GPL (and i have discussed this personally with RMS) is that linking is not
>a relevant issue.  It doesn't make any difference whether a program is
>dynamically or statically linked.  The issue is whether or not the 
>hypothetical
>closed source code and the GPLed code together constitute a program.
>
>Here is the relevant part of the GPL (from section 2):
>
> > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
> > sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be 
> reasonably
> > considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License,
> > and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as
> > separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a 
> whole
> > which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be
> > on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees 
> extend to
> > the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who 
> wrote it.
>
>Applying this to our situation, i would say that ActiveDiatheke is 'derived
>from the Program [Sword]' (because its sole purpose is to provide an interface
>to Sword facilities) and thus would fall under the GPL (although we should
>distribute it as part of Sword to make sure this is clear), whereas any work
>using ActiveDiatheke would not constitute a work 'derived from the Program'
>because it would simply be using services provided by it (especially if it 
>were
>distributed as a separate work).
>
>A similar example (IMO) would be writing an SMTP server based on a GPL-ed
>networking library.  The server itself would be GPL-ed because it was a work
>derived from the library, whereas any email client connecting to the SMTP
>server would simply be using the services it provides, without being 
>subject to
>the GPL.
>
>Therefore i conclude that this is not a loophole, but the GPL working as
>designed.  IANAL, so i would be interested in hearing whether anyone disagrees
>with me.  Having followed free software licensing debates for some time and
>spoken with RMS about this, i think i've got the ideas pretty straight.  What
>do you think, Jerry, Troy, others?

There is a thread regarding this going on at this very *moment* on 
linux-kernel (quotes attached).  Alan Cox is saying that GPL is ambiguous 
regarding it's stance on linking.  But I agree with you, Paul, I think the 
GPL is clear in it's indication, if though it doesn't specify exact 
"linking" verbiage.  It works more on an intellectual sense, IMHO.

FYI, two posts from Alan Cox (for those who don't know, Alan is a widely 
respected Linux kernel hacker):

Subject: Re: Nasty Requirements for non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules?
To: scott@CS.Princeton.EDU
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 19:06:38 +0100 (BST)
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

 > As part of our operating system / networking research, we have
 > written a loadable kernel module for Linux. We would like to
 > distribute the source but we're not sure if our development
 > office will allow us to release it under the GPL (at least
 > initially). Before meeting with the lawyers, I'm trying to
 > learn what I can about the issue.
If you want to do binary only then it depends solely how your lawyers intend
to interpret the concept of 'linking'. Linus comments on the matter have no
impact since the kernel isnt all his copyright and he has linked in code by
bodies who are most definitely opposed to binary modules.
The same applies for source code under 'additional restrictions' as the GPL
calls things disallowing stuff it allows.
If you are releasing modules with source under terms that are at least as free
as the GPL (eg BSD without advertising clause) then nobody has any cares. We
probably wouldnt merge it with the mainstream kernel due to the lack of
patent trap protection in the BSD license but I suspect you dont want that
anyway.
Alan

Delivered-To: db@C837140-A.cyclone.dom
Delivered-To: alias-localdelivery-db@cyclonehq.dnsalias.net
Subject: Re: Nasty Requirements for non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules?
To: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 20:11:51 +0100 (BST)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), scott@CS.Princeton.EDU,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

 > and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
 > themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
 > sections when you distribute them as separate works.
 >
 > For example, suppose I ship you a tarball that has the source & binaries
 > for both a GPLed program and a non GPLed helper program in it - does the
 > non GPLed program become GPLed? I tend to doubt it and so do the lawyers.
The counter example is the Objective C compiler. There the helper was not 
usable
without the GPL compiler so was not a 'seperate work'
 > Note that I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion on this is just that,
 > my opinion. I have spent a fair amount of time and money trying to
Ditto but I spent favours not $15K chunks 8)
 > you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my opinion, is fine.
 > If it isn't worth $15K to protect your code then it is worth so little to
 > you that there really is no good reason not to just GPL it from the start.
Smart advice.

HTH,

Dan Browning, Cyclone Computer Systems, danb@cyclonecomputers.com