[CLUE-Talk] GPL Question
Matthew Porter
mfporter at mindspring.com
Thu Mar 15 10:02:44 MST 2001
On Wednesday 14 March 2001 13:59, Grant Johnson wrote:
> Has there been any definitive answer on what constitutes "linking?"
>
> Since my software runs on LInux, indirectly, Linux kernel calls happen as a
> result of what my application does. Is this linking? fopen fires up
> something in glibc, which fires up something in the kernel. This is
> linking (just once removed).
Apparently the FSF does not consider mere system calls to be linking,
when it comes to non-GPL software running on a GPL OS. For example,
they don't have a problem with software released under non-GPL-
compatible licenses (such as Zope, and Apache under Apache Licenses
1.0 and 1.1) running on GNU/Linux.
> Any help? I just want to keep myself out of trouble. As for the other way
> around, what if a GPL program is ported to Windows? Does this present a
> problem? If you use the MS C compiler, it WILL like routines from
> msvcrt20.dll and msvcrt40.dll. How do we get around this? How do we port
> applications to windows without violating the GPL, since all of the API's
> are undocumented and hidden in their proprietary DLL's?
>
Well, I know there are MS Windows ports for some famous GPL software,
such as GNU Emacs and GIMP. I'm not absolutely certain without some
more research, but I don't think that there's a problem with porting
a GPL program to a closed/proprietary OS if the ported program is
self-contained, needing only itself and the OS in order to run, and
otherwise complies with the GPL.
Here's some language from the GPL, from the section requiring
distribution of source code along with binaries, that I think helps
convey the GPL position on working with different OSs:
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source
or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so
on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
component itself accompanies the executable. "
Remember also that most of the terms of the GPL that apply to
modifications of GPL software only kick in if you "distribute" the
modification -- though there are surely some tricky questions as to
what constitutes "distribution."
Finally, here's an old Slashdot thread about the Windows port of
GIMP. It includes some interesting thoughts and exchanges on the
subject of porting GPL software, if you can get past the vitriol and
First Posts:
http://slashdot.org/articles/98/09/22/0843246.shtml
--Matt.
---------------
Matthew Porter
Golden, CO
mfporter at tetsujin.org
PGP PUBLIC KEY available
NOTE: This message is for general information only. It does not
constitute specific legal advice, and does not establish any attorney-
client relationship.
---------------------
Matthew Porter
Golden, Colorado
mfporter at mindspring.com
PGP PUBLIC KEY available
Received: from femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.87])
by clue.denver.co.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA31265
for <clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us>; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:40:02 -0700
Received: from aurora1.co.home.com ([24.8.20.240])
by femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20010315034416.MYTL7586.femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com at aurora1.co.home.com>
for <clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us>;
Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:44:16 -0800
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:41:34 -0700 (MST)
From: Chris Wiegand <cdwiegand at home.com>
X-Sender: chris at c1009234-b.aurora1.co.home.com
To: clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
Subject: Re: [CLUE-Talk] GPL Question
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20010314135338.00a58760 at 24.6.225.162>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103142035320.1524-100000 at c1009234-b.aurora1.co.home.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: clue-talk-admin at clue.denver.co.us
Errors-To: clue-talk-admin at clue.denver.co.us
X-BeenThere: clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta2
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
List-Id: CLUE non-technical discussions. <clue-talk.clue.denver.co.us>
Warning Will Robinson! Danger!
That is one of those things that isn't really defined well. It's also
about the only real difference between LGPL and GPL.
I Am Not A Lawyer, Nor Am I Related To One.
However, from what I've read on the gnu website (www.gnu.org), you can
port that code to Windows, no prob, as long as that program stays under
that license. Windows can be proprietary all it wants - that doesn't
affect YOUR program's license. Or the libraries it calls - as long as
you've got a license to develop with that library (which you probably got
from your VisualC++ license).
Basically, it boils down to the license OF THE LIBRARY: If it's GPL, your
program has be OpenSource/FreeSoftware as well. Proprietary license have
their own restrictions (or not).
Remember, No Lawyer In My Family, And That Includes ME!
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Grant Johnson wrote:
> Has there been any definitive answer on what constitutes "linking?"
>
> Since my software runs on LInux, indirectly, Linux kernel calls happen as a
> result of what my application does. Is this linking? fopen fires up
> something in glibc, which fires up something in the kernel. This is
> linking (just once removed).
>
> The question becomes an issue when a customer wants a system, is interested
> in Linux, but for whatever reason does not want to distribute under the GPL.
>
> Any help? I just want to keep myself out of trouble. As for the other way
> around, what if a GPL program is ported to Windows? Does this present a
> problem? If you use the MS C compiler, it WILL like routines from
> msvcrt20.dll and msvcrt40.dll. How do we get around this? How do we port
> applications to windows without violating the GPL, since all of the API's
> are undocumented and hidden in their proprietary DLL's?
>
> _______________________________________________
> CLUE-Talk mailing list
> CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
> http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>
More information about the clue-talk
mailing list