[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mozilla-license
Subject:    A way to make the GPL compatible with NPL/MPL
From:       "John Marter" <jmarter () luminet ! net>
Date:       1998-03-28 4:43:16
[Download RAW message or body]

I have read several posts which suggest the RMS change the GPL to
be compatible with other licenses.  RMS really can't do this though
because he or the FSF has made a commitment not change the
content of the GPL.  I believe that a future release could be made only
to clarify the issues.

I used to read flamewars about how the GPL is like a shrinkwrap
license and hence unenforceable.  They always ended with the
explanation that the only restriction on GPL'd software is the copyright
that all software has.  The GPL unlike a shrinkwrap license only adds
to your rights (i.e. you can copy the software anyway as long as you
follow the terms of the GPL).

The only problem with that is the GPL goes beyond just relying on
copyright for enforcement because (according to some) it says that
you cannot distribute a work containing no GPL code that (and this is
the tricky part) links with GPL code.  The argument goes that it is
really a derived work and so it can only be distributed under the GPL.

Now about that tricky part. The way I have seen it explained once is
that I could write an a proprietary application that links to the GPL'd
library as long as there I can also ship the application linked to a
non-GPL'd replacement library.  This would be okay because I have
created a useful app that has no dependency on GPL'd code.  So as
long as there is a non-GPL implementation of an API, I can release
code that depends on the API even if it might be used with GPL'd
code.

Unfortunately I've also heard this is not true.  In RMS's recent post
outlining his problems with the NPL, he said that linking would violate
one of the licenses.

I do not know which is right.  Nevertheless my title proposes a way to
make the GPL compatible with the NPL. This is it.  It may be
legitimate for RMS to declare that a GPL program can use or provide
an existing API and the program on the other end of the API is not
considered a derivative work.

In my eyes this really is just a clarification of the GPL and not a
change.  If RMS agrees, then he would be able to change the GPL to
make this clear.

Caveats
o  I am not a lawyer so I could be way off base on all of this.

o  I have intermingled the words "linking" and "API" as if "linking"
   means using an API.  That might not be legitimate.

o  It would be nice if this clarification only applied to Open Source
   software, but I think that if RMS were to try to limit the scope of the
   "clarification" in that way, it wouldn't be a "clarification" but a Real
   Change to the license.

o  This is not exactly compatibility that we get, but it does allow us
   to mix GPL and NPL software with some extra work.

o  The clarification might require that there first be non-GPL
   implementations of both sides of the API.

Thanks,
John Marter
jmarter@fastenal.com

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]