[ale] OT: GPL Question

[Joseph A. Knapka]

Pete Hardie wrote:
> 
> Jeffrey B. Layton wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >   I apologize for asking this question because it's a
> > bit OT and it might stur up some arguments.
> > However, this is probably the best forum I know to
> > ask this question.
> >   If I install a piece of software that is licensed under
> > GPL, say a mathematical library, and write my own
> > code that just calls functions within the library (I
> > have not modified the library in any way and do not
> > statically link the library), do I have to license my
> > code under GPL? My initial gut feel is I can license
> > my software any way I want, but this is brewing
> > into a controversary at work and I want to get some
> > input (and any links) before discussing this with the
> > attorneys.
> 
> This very topic has been on /. or Linux Today within the past 2 weeks.
> Google for Asay and GPL to find links.

Found the Matt Asay article, here:

<URL: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT4528760742.html>

You all may recall that a couple of months ago I posed
the following hypothetical:

  I've got a commercial, closed-source application server,
  WhizBangAppServer, for which a dynamic-loading API for
  plugins is defined. I write a plugin that honors that API
  and works under WhizBangAppServer. I then load that
  plugin into a GPL'd clone appserver that implements the
  same plugin API. Is my plugin now encumbered by the GPL?

Someone said, "No", and gave some good reasons. But the
dialogue between Asay and Stallman in the article in
question clearly indicates that Stallman *wants* my
code to be encumbered - he thinks that dynamically
linking to GPL'd code constitutes a derivative work,
and even that *running as a process on a GPL'd OS
constitutes a derivative work* !!! Further, he thinks
that all Linux kernel modules should be subject to
the GPL on the same grounds (even though Linus has
disavowed that interpretation).

Now, personally, I think that is absolute nonsense
and unlikely to hold up in court. (IANAL.) But it's
distressing, because by trying to expand the scope
of the GPL in unenforeable ways, I fear Stallman
will open the door to the complete breakdown of
the GPL as an open-source licensing mechanism.
And in the unlikely event that Stallman's
interpretation is found to be legally valid
and enforceable, it will most likely kill Linux
as a viable commercial OS, since Oracle, for
example, is not going to want their code running
on a viral OS. (Oh, the irony!)

It's almost enough to make me want to switch
completely to BSD-licensed software.

-- Joe
  "I'd rather chew my leg off than maintain Java code, which
   sucks, 'cause I have a lot of Java code to maintain and
   the leg surgery is starting to get expensive." - Me

---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.