[sword-devel] Still more about licensing

[Hastings]

At 05:23 AM 12/10/2003, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
>  A program which uses sword libraries doesn't have to be under GPL.
>It only must be under a GPL-compatible licence.

If another license is "compatible" then the GPL is there in spirit. In 
other words, the GPL in other words. You are just as bound to the terms of 
the GPL as if it was the GPL.

>  GPL uses some kind of trick. When a program
>and a library are separate (in binary form in e.g. a hard drive of an end
>user) they have their own licences. But when they are linked at run time, GPL
>has the viral effect and changes the other part's licence to GPL.

Not true. Either the other part's license was compatible with the GPL (GPL 
is equivalent and allowed relicense),  or the part is an excepted case 
(part of an OS or such), or this is a violation of one or both licenses. 
Another viral myth.

>Also when
>they are distributed in a same medium GPL has that effect.

See above.

>And what's more, any personal use is allowed.

Careful there. Give an inch and take a mile. "Personal use" has been 
claimed by people doing all kinds of copyright violations that are in fact 
not personal. The moment you distribute to another person, even for their 
personal use, you are doing something that is not personal.

I just did a search of the GPL and the GPL FAQ and I didn't find the word 
"personal". Did I miss something?

>Someone else is allowed to download your code,

Without your permission? When downloading is between two parties it is not 
personal. Placing a work on a public site for downloading is definitely not 
personal. (Not that you suggested a public site.)

>  compile it and use
>the binaries with the GPL'ed library which he has obtained somewhere else.
>That all is personal use, except for distributing the source code, and GPL is
>not meant to deal with any personal use.

Again, I would be very careful with that thinking. (I am not sure what the 
point is.) What does this have to do with a public project or the creation 
of another public project?

>Distributing the source is possible
>because of Section 2: "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".

You meant possible without including the GPL. I believe that "independent 
and separate" means that when compiled and executed it will not need any 
other GPL works to run. Even if you distribute it in Pig Latin you will 
need to include the GPL if it needs other GPL works to run which are not 
for special exempted cases.

>  I have read these things somewhere and they represent some common
>interpretations.

Common does not mean correct.

>GPL is very problematic licence and it's legal status at
>least in some points is unclear.

A lot of things dealing with IP rights are not very clear. It is not just a 
problem with the GPL. In my opinion it could be better though. Linking has 
been a can of worms.

>Would it be
>illegal to make a proprietary program using that proprietary library? No.

Assuming you received all the needed permissions from all the copyright 
holders.

>Therefore distributing a proprietary program which uses sword API must also
>be legal.

If you could get all the permissions.

>But it is illegal to distribute a proprietary program which uses
>some API with a GPL'ed library which has that API.

It is also illegal to distribute a proprietary program which uses a 
proprietary API with a proprietary library which has that API unless you 
have all the needed permissions.

>Therefore e.g. Linux

OSs have special rules.

Just my opinions.

Jerry