Re: scope of linux in the corporates...


girish wrote:

What if - the developed software makes use of GPL libraries (the'libc) is
present in a ROM. Now the ROM is not exactly distributed standalone. Would
that still be considered as a Distributed Binary & that user has right to
claim the sources?

If the developed software made use of GPL'd libraries (glibc is not
GPL) then it would be a distributed binary. The user would have the
right to claim the sources. This is why the LGPL was created and why
glibc is licensed under the LGPL instead of the GPL.

I wonder what would happen to my application, that I do not intend to give
away sources, which as network client downloads HTTP contents. Because I am
in no position dictate that the HTTP server must be a Non-GPL based. There
are certain decisions I need to make in my application based on contents
which are generated by Open Source HTTP server. Whether such contents used
in my application will be considered as derivatives of GPL work &
subsequently enforcing all those copyright and/or licenses on my work as
well?

If they do not contain protectable portions of the work, they are not
derivative works.

Where does the line-of-control for GPL based work end in such cases?

It is found in copyright law which sets the scope of the GPL. There is
no simple way to explain what is or isn't a derivative work of
something, but google should help you find some more information.

A web page is almost certainly not a derivative work of the web server
that generated it. The GPL says (and it would be the case even if the
GPL didn't say it):

"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, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."

DS

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: scope of linux in the corporates...
    ... As I read the GPL (and you must ... Now the ROM is not exactly distributed standalone. ... in no position dictate that the HTTP server must be a Non-GPL based. ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.apps)
  • Re: Is linux free
    ... > believes a linux distro is not a ''mere aggregation'', ... > derived work, therefore is derived from some GPL software, therefore the ... > entire distro must be under the GPL. ... software for MS-Windows would be a derivative work of Microsoft ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Calling GPL code from a Python application
    ... >>>that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? ... >>covered by this License; ... Section 0 of the GPL defines "derivative work" thus: ... (Hereinafter, translation is included without ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
    ... Actually, if memory serves, when you license a work under the GPL, part of the ... compiler people caught on to the economic opportunity. ... a derivative work" the claim is invalid - because, as it has been shown, a ... especially if that random program competes with something the ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • RE: [PATCH] 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 - fix mcount GPL bogosity.
    ... distributing a binary module may claim he/she doesn't violate the GPL ... something is a derivative work is a pure question of copyright law and the ... difficult to violate the license. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)