🚀 go-pugleaf

jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
> In <cc7sgB21w164w@mantis.co.uk>, From A to B writes:
> >For example, suppose I create a complete version control system which happen
> >to use GNU tar for creating archives of old versions.  First of all, does
> >the GPL cover my program if it calls a standalone GNU tar?  The FSF answer
> >seems to be "hire expensive lawyers". 
>     
>     Quote the FSF document stating this please.

mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
writes in <MIB.92Jan27202907@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
| The extent to which your code and the FSF code are combined as a
| "single program" (or application, or whatever) is the operative test.
| Some of my prior statements here were incorrect.  The exact nature of
| the boundary is decided by a judge.  For advice, pay a lawyer.
 
And in <MIB.92Jan27202633@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
| I just spoke with rms about this.
[...]
| My earlier statement about "even if they are in the same program" was
| incorrect.  Depending on the degree to which your code is intertwined
| with FSF code, the total program may or may not be considered a "work
| based on" the FSF code.  There is a gray area involved, which gets
| decided by the judges.

>                                                     I don't suppose
> you ascribe to the Darcy " I prove all my statements or apoligise "
> philosophy, do you?

If you like.  Note that I said "seems to be".

>                            As has been stated numerous times the GPL 
> covers derivitive works, you're even discussing it with Peter
> over in news.admin right now. Even the most braindead lawyer would
> probably pass on arguing that calling a program made it a derivitive
> work.

So if I separate my code into mycode.c and have calls to a gnu program in
gnucode.c, I only have to provide source for gnucode.c?

I don't think it's nearly as straightforward an issue as you think.

> Every writer of a shell would be at risk, as it can call all
> sorts of copywritten programs. 

Quite.  Or look at my GNU Public Virus joke.  Ha ha, only serious.

> > What about if I provide .o files
> >and get the user to link during installation? 
> 
>     If you can find users who want to go through that who'll pay you
> for your software, have fun.

Most programs have an install routine.  Linking isn't that slow a task compared
with unpacking and uncompressing.

> > What about if I build the
> >GNU tar code into my code for efficiency?
> 
>     Well, that's pretty obviously a dirivative work, wouldn't you say?

Well, I'm not sure.  You said it wasn't a derivative work when the code was in
separate .c files; now suddenly it is.  But it's the same code.  Why is
it a derivative work now when it wasn't before?
 
> Shall I type in the definition of dirivative, or could you just look it 
> up? 

If you have a definition of derivative which makes this all as obvious as
you seem to think it is, then do please enlighten us all.

>     All 3 of these examples are entirely different from each other. Did
> you intend them to be related in some way?

The end result of each example is a program which is functionally identical
to the others.  From the user's point of view, all three programs are the
same.  So why are some covered by the GPL and others not?  And *which* are
covered by the GPL?


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices