Re: GPL - GSL and derivative work.

[Edwin Robert Tisdale <E dot Robert dot Tisdale at jpl dot nasa dot gov>]

Mark Galassi wrote:

> E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
> 
> > You can distribute the application object code
> > without the application source code without violating the GPL
> > and let users link it into the GPL'd library themselves.
> 
> Someone else has pointed it out but let me repeat that
> the above paragraph is completely wrong.
> 
> If the GNU Scientific Library is *required*
> for your program to function,
> then your program is a "derivative work"
> and must be distributed as spelled out by the GPL
> (the easiest way is to put your program under the GPL)
> even if you don't ship a binary that is statically linked
> to the GNU Scientific Library.
> 
> If the GNU Scientific Library is just one of many libraries
> with identical APIs, then you might have other options.
> 
> > I don't think that there is any practical way for the FSF
> > or the library developers to prevent users from doing this.
> 
> Breaking the law is breaking the law
> even if it is difficult to get caught.
> Breaking the law to exploit people's volunteer work
> and not return to the free software community
> counts as unethical in my book.
> 
> All things considered, trying to "work around" the GPL is dumb.
> People could try a copernican-style shift in their thinking:
> the GPL is a powerful tool
> and people should look at the "derived work" clause
> as an opportunity to try a licensing model
> that they would have ignored otherwise and
> that might actually work much better for them.

Your personal sense of "justice"
is not an adequate substitute for law.

An application program does not "require" the GSL
just because it uses the same API.
I don't think that you can copyright an API.
Anyone could implement the GSL API
without infringing on the GSL copyright.

The GSL developers can't make law
by simply including the a GPL notice
or expressing the authors' "intent".
Law is made when the license is challenged in court
and the court decides how the copyright law
and the licensing agreement is to be interpreted.
I don't believe that has happened yet in this case.

In my opinion, the GSL developers made a poor choice
when they decided to use the GPL instead of the LGPL
and I would have no sympathy for them
if some application developer decided to work around it.
On the other hand, I believe that the GSL is a poor choice
for any application development let alone commercial applications
and I would have no sympathy for any application developer
who used the GSL.