From c88f72765ad26c296c34011f9d39c0e8f9572380 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" 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}