[Mono-devel-list] ByteFX development

[Joshua Tauberer]

Jonathan Pryor wrote:
> Yes, and no.  The metadata is sufficiently small (assembly name,
> version, public key, referenced classes, etc.) that it could probably be
> declared "fair use".
...
> So, to simplify (is that safe?), your program must be GPL'd if it
> directly or indirectly relies upon GPL'd facilities, *unless* it's "just
> data" for those facilities.

This can't be the end of the story, though.  If you start the sentence 
"Your program must be GPLed if...", the end of the sentence has to have 
something to do with making copies of someone else's copyrighted work.

What I'm getting at is this: There has to be a reason, based in law, for 
why the GPL license would be binding on me as a developer.  Normally, 
people can't tell me how I have to license my work.  Why can the GPL 
force me to do something?

It's *not* because I agreed to the GPL when I downloaded GPL software, 
or when I used a GPL program.  The GPL isn't an EULA or click-through 
"license" -- the GPL is not a contract.  (I read a good explanation 
about this somewhere, but it was long ago so I don't have a reference 
off hand.)

There are circumstances, however, when I'm legally not allowed to make 
copies of my own work (oversimplification alert).  If my code is a 
derivative of or contains someone else's code, copyright law says I 
cannot distribute my code without the permission of the owner of the 
other code.

Now the GPL comes into the picture.  When code is released under the 
GPL, it's a blanket statement giving anyone permission to distribute 
derivatives or combinations of the GPLed code.  Except, it only gives 
permission to you if you agree to a few things, one of which is that you 
have to GPL your code too.

So the moral of the story is that you're only bound by the GPL if you 
are attempting to make copies of something that 1) you don't hold the 
copyright on, 2) you don't have specific permission from the copyright 
holder to make copies of, and 3) the code has been released under the GPL.

"Relying on" and "making copies of" are two different things, and only 
the latter is illegal without a license.  When copyright law is not 
involved, neither is the GPL.

The next question is: Can you rely on software without making a 
derivative/copy of some aspect of it?  So, you might be right that if 
you rely on GPL software you are bound by the GPL, but only if relying 
on the software necessarily involves integrating GPLed stuff, or a 
derivative of it, into your own stuff.

So who decides whether referencing a GPLed assembly ends up with a 
derivative work?  Not the GPL, and not the owner of the GPL code.  Only 
courts can decide, because only courts can decide whether something is 
copyright infringement.  Since a court hasn't taken up this topic yet 
(unless there's somehow applicable precedent), it's entirely undefined.

I liked that disclaimer, Jon.  I'm going to reference it here in an 
attempt at irony.

-- 
- Joshua Tauberer

http://taubz.for.net

** Nothing Unreal Exists **