4 ms·
The crux of the disagreement is whether simply calling another library (as opposed to modifying its source code) makes your codebase a derivative work of that l
by smallnamespace 10y ago
The crux of the disagreement is whether simply calling another library (as opposed to modifying its source code) makes your codebase a derivative work of that library.
The GPL FAQ seems to think the answer is yes [1]. However, other, more legally astute commentators strongly disagree [2][3].
In fact, the GPL FAQ seems to make some rather strange claims, like whether the fact that code is dynamically or statically linked legally determines whether a calling code becomes derivative work. This is an argument has never been tested in court.
IMO, the GPL FAQ basically takes a copyright maximalist position in order to interpret the license as broadly as possible. These are arguments that, in other contexts, most geeks would find completely unacceptable. It's worthwhile to note that the GPL FAQ has no validity as a legal document, only the license itself.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfLibraryIsGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
[2] http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm
[3] http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Gue.pdf http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/G... p.124
- hirsin 10y agoUnless I am very mistaken, GPL and MIT proponents came to a compromise on this very issue, resulting in the LGPL. This exact scenario (linking/using a GPL library without modification) was considered valid by both sides to the point that they created a new license specifically for it.
- smallnamespace 10y agoNot exactly. There's two different issues here: 1. Whether the license makes derivative works fall under the same license (GPL does, LGPL doesn't) 2. Whether the work in question is in fact a derivative work (which is yet to be determined) Even if it turns out that it is in fact a derivative work, using the library might constitute fair use.
- revelation 10y agoI think it's dubious if any court is going to care about static/dynamic linking technical discussions, particularly since we're talking about an Android app with Java code, among other things. The GPL license itself doesn't bother with such technical minutiae either. But it does concern itself with distributing GPL code and unrelated code as a "whole"; and undeniably the Wix Android app comes with the Wordpress GPL code. So I don't think this is the particular case that you want to test the whole dynamic linking discussion on.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]