This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [OFFTOPIC] LGPL libbfd
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 12:14:53PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> The flaw in your argument is that the GPL doesn't concern itself with
> executables. It concerns itself with "works", which may consist of
> more than one computer file, regardless of format. If you build a
> version of winebuild that will not function without a libbfd dynamic
> library, then the winebuild executable and libbfd library together are
> a single work, and the use of a GPL'd component in that work requires
> that the entire work be distributed as GPL.
> [cut]
The claim that the authoring party are not bond to the GPL is true for the
following reason:
Consider the fact that it is possible with nothing but an API description to
build a program, which could be linked to a GPL. Not a single moment the
authoring party would have been forced to comply with the GPL, because it
never licensed a copy. Please think about that for a while.
The GPL can't limit my freedom of creation if I've never agreed to it.
A law would be required, that would limit my ultimate right to invent, own,
and distribute independent work, if there is another work somewhere in the
universe which could have been needed for my creation.
Fortunately no such law exists, no court could administer justice that way.
The first moment when the !GPL work and the GPL work must touch is at
compile time. The compiling party is forced to comply with the GPL, not the
authoring party.
> The GPL does not limit *source* distributions this way. If you
> distributed winebuild strictly as source, the fact that it required
> libbfd to build would be irrelevent wrt the GPL.
In fact it is impossible for the GPL to control it. (wrt=with?)
> The grey area happens when the dynamic linking is done with a
> published ABI, and the modules are optional. Does a single GPL module
> cause the application to become illegal? If you write a GPL'd
> photoshop plugin, must photoshop become GPL'd? Can you distribute the
> plugin without photoshop? In the case of the linux kernel, Linus
> explicitly made the exception that non-gpl'd binary modules are OK, to
> avoid this grey area. In your case, the module is not optional and
> only libbfd (which is not a generic ABI) is acceptable, so I do not
> think this kind of greyness applies here.
To GPL stats at it's first section:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, ..."
Dynamic linking is clearly a part of the act of running a program.
b.regards,
Clemens