This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [OFFTOPIC] LGPL libbfd


Hello Delorie!

On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 09:59:45AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > wine is a BSD styled license. libbfd pure GPL.
> 
> If you build a program that contains both of these, you may still
> legally redistribute it, but you must now distribute it as if the
> entire work were GPLd (because now it is).  This means, among other
> things, that you are required to distribute sources for winebuild as
> well as libbfd.

This is one more thought on the whole "linking to a GPL module" issue, so
you have been warned. Probably one should reply in private, since this
message can be clearly classified as offtopic.

Please have a look at the text of the GPL, while reading my reply.
(No need to search for your local copy, just click
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html )

The act of Running the program however is not covered by the GPL, thus
dynamic runtime linking is merely an act of running a program, which is not
restricted in any way (Read: Section 0. Paragraph 1).

winebuild executables will be classified as derived work for the reason,
because the modification of the header files in libbfd or the modification
of the symbol information in the shared libraries, will result in a
modification of the output of the compiler/linker. Thus the work of the
compiler/linker can be considered as a transformation of the original work, 
which would make the output of transformation bound to the conditions of
the original works' licenses.

I assert that authoring party of a module linking to a GPL covered module
does in no way have to comply with the terms of the GPL. The derived work is
formed by the compiling and linking party with the act of compiling,
linking. But as long as the result is not distributed, the 2 preconditions of
section 2 - modification _and_ distribution - are not met, thus the terms of
section 2 do not apply and thus the GPL is not infringed.
(Read: Section 2. Paragraph 1.)

Although the distribution of object code or executable form is not covered
by section 2 directly, it is made mandatory by section 3, which coveres
distribution of executable form. (Read: Section 3, Paragraph 1).
Thus the only party in trouble would be the binary packager. He would not be
allowed to redistribute the executable, since it is considered derived work,
which does not comply with section 2a. 

This can circumvented, as it is done by the debian qmail package, which
redistributes the sourcecode of qmail and builds the binaries on package
installation.

Delorie, I don't consent with your assertations that I would have to
distribute libbfd along with winebuild, since I would just imitate the role
of the authoring party.

Please prove me wrong, since if I'm correct the GPL world would be
significantly flawed, requiring the authoring party to be just open
source (rendering the seperating GPL-compatible GPL-incompatible totally
useless).

Clemens

p.s.: think of the implications of my elaborations for those distros, which
are compiled entirely from scratch, at installation time. No GPL rules would
apply for them.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]