Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Integrate pasted text on "separate & independent".

Browse source 
This pasted text was pretty useful, and is now integrated fully, with
additional text I wrote to improve and expand the point.
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-11-12 11:28:51 -05:00
parent 67bb09ea17
commit c88f72765a
1 changed files with 32 additions and 33 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

65
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -1667,15 +1667,6 @@ affects the license of the new whole combined and/or derivative work.
\label{separate-and-independent} \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 It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called
\worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'd program (called \workg{}). The \worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'd program (called \workg{}). The
license of \worki{}, when it is distributed as a separate and independent 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 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 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 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 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.) 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 Thus, GPL recognizes what is outside its scope. When a programmer's work is
the scope of copyright. They do not, however, as is sometimes suggested, do ``separate and independent'' from any GPL’d program code with which it could
so in a way that distinguishes ``dynamic'' from ``static'' linking of program be combined, then copyleft obligations do not extend to the independent work
code in ``early-binding'' programming languages. It is occasionally suggested separately distributed. Thus, far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond
that a subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL’d code is, by virtue of the the scope of copyright, GPL explicitly limits the scope of copyleft to the
linking alone, inherently outside the scope of copyleft on the main scope of copyright.
work. This is a misunderstanding. When two software components are joined
together to make one work (whether a main and some library subroutines, two GPL does not, however (as is sometimes suggested) distinguish ``dynamic''
objects with their respective methods, or a program and a ``plugin'') the from ``static'' linking of program code. It is occasionally suggested that a
combination infringes the copyright on the components if the combination subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL’d code is, by virtue of the linking
required copyright permission from the component copyright holders, and such alone, inherently outside the scope of copyleft on the main work. This is a
permission was either not available or was available on terms that were not misunderstanding. When two software components are joined together to make
observed. 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 \medskip
\label{GPLv2s2-at-no-charge} \label{GPLv2s2-at-no-charge}