From c88f72765ad26c296c34011f9d39c0e8f9572380 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@ebb.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:28:51 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Integrate pasted text on "separate & independent".
This pasted text was pretty useful, and is now integrated fully, with
additional text I wrote to improve and expand the point.
---
gpl-lgpl.tex | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index eef5530..6368ee0 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -1667,15 +1667,6 @@ affects the license of the new whole combined and/or derivative work.
\label{separate-and-independent}
-%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
-
-But the GNU GPL licenses recognize what is outside their scope. Where a programmer’s work is
-``separate and independent'' from any GPL’d program code with which it could be
-combined, then the obligations of copyleft do not extend to the work
-separately distributed. Far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond the
-scope of copyright, the licenses explicitly recognize.
-
-%FIXME-URGENT: end
It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called
\worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'd program (called \workg{}). The
license of \worki{}, when it is distributed as a separate and independent
@@ -1696,33 +1687,41 @@ GPL, states the options for the copyright holder of \worki{}
who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. The GPL's pre-granted
permission to create and distribute combined and/or derivative works, provided the terms
of the GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
-would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license. (Thus, to
-say that this condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.)
+would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license. Thus, to
+say that this condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.
-% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
+The GPL recognizes what is outside its scope. When a programmer’s work is
+``separate and independent'' from any GPL’d program code with which it could be
+combined, then the obligations of copyleft do not extend to the work
+separately distributed. Thus, Far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond the
+scope of copyright, the licenses explicitly recognize.
-The GPL licenses, then, are explicit about limiting the scope of copyleft to
-the scope of copyright. They do not, however, as is sometimes suggested, do
-so in a way that distinguishes ``dynamic'' from ``static'' linking of program
-code in ``early-binding'' programming languages. It is occasionally suggested
-that a subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL’d code is, by virtue of the
-linking alone, inherently outside the scope of copyleft on the main
-work. This is a misunderstanding. When two software components are joined
-together to make one work (whether a main and some library subroutines, two
-objects with their respective methods, or a program and a ``plugin'') the
-combination infringes the copyright on the components if the combination
-required copyright permission from the component copyright holders, and such
-permission was either not available or was available on terms that were not
-observed.
+Thus, GPL recognizes what is outside its scope. When a programmer's work is
+``separate and independent'' from any GPL’d program code with which it could
+be combined, then copyleft obligations do not extend to the independent work
+separately distributed. Thus, far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond
+the scope of copyright, GPL explicitly limits the scope of copyleft to the
+scope of copyright.
+
+GPL does not, however (as is sometimes suggested) distinguish ``dynamic''
+from ``static'' linking of program code. It is occasionally suggested that a
+subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL’d code is, by virtue of the linking
+alone, inherently outside the scope of copyleft on the main work. This is a
+misunderstanding. When two software components are joined together to make
+one work (whether a main and some library subroutines, two objects with their
+respective methods, or a program and a ``plugin'') the combination infringes
+the copyright on the components if the combination required copyright
+permission from the component copyright holders, as such permission was
+either not available or was available on terms that were not observed.
+
+In other words, when combining other software with GPL'd components, the only
+available permission is GPL. The combiner must observe and respect the GPL
+observed on the combination as a whole. It matters not if that combination
+is made with a linker before distribution of the executable, is made by the
+operating system in order to share libraries for execution efficiency at
+runtime, or results from runtime references in the language at runtime (as in
+Java programs).
-Where a combination is made with GPL’d or AGPL’d components, the
-only available permission is copyleft, and its terms must be observed on the
-combination as a whole if the GPL’d component is to be used at all. Whether
-the combination is made with a linker before distribution of the executable,
-is made by the OS kernel in order to share libraries for execution efficiency
-at runtime, or results from ``late-binding'' of references in the language at
-runtime (as in Java programs) is irrelevant.
-%FIXME-URGENT: end
\medskip
\label{GPLv2s2-at-no-charge}