3 ms·

[[citation needed]]. From what I remember, the FSF is pretty consistent in saying that deriving from GPL code is derived work. If your linking constitutes a der

by skore 15y ago

[[citation needed]]. From what I remember, the FSF is pretty consistent in saying that deriving from GPL code is derived work. If your linking constitutes a derivation (a common example would be a database handler that you adapt to your application after you've loaded it) then it is a derivation. If you just loosely call it, it is not.

aaronblohowiak 15y ago
Golden, Bernard (2005), "Chapter 3. Open Source Risks", Succeeding with Open Source, Addison-Wesley, p. 44, ISBN 9780321268532 You appear to be confusing GPL with the "GPL With Linking Exception" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
- skore 15y ago
  It is possible for a piece of software to rely on the output of another piece of software without being derivative. Hell, that's basically how any interface in the world works. As the wikipedia article on the GPL notes, the problem is not so much the GPL, but how derivative work is not that well pinned down in copyright law itself. That it appears ambiguous in the GPL is a result of that. My rule of thumb is to approach it from the angle of "what is the software worth if you take out what is linked?" - If the software can function without the linked code, it may not be derivative, but the actual question is whether it is useful without the linked code. Whether it carries out the tasks that the user needs the software for without the linked code. To me, it's more of a social question of how much the linkee is indebted to the linked. So no, I don't think I am confusing the two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lin...
equark 15y ago
Meteor packages all the JS together and minifies it. That's clearly linking.
- skore 15y ago
  No, that's packing and minification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Communicating_and_bundling_with_non-GPL_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Com...

by skore 15y ago

aaronblohowiak 15y ago

Golden, Bernard (2005), "Chapter 3. Open Source Risks", Succeeding with Open Source, Addison-Wesley, p. 44, ISBN 9780321268532 You appear to be confusing GPL with the "GPL With Linking Exception" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception

skore 15y ago
It is possible for a piece of software to rely on the output of another piece of software without being derivative. Hell, that's basically how any interface in the world works. As the wikipedia article on the GPL notes, the problem is not so much the GPL, but how derivative work is not that well pinned down in copyright law itself. That it appears ambiguous in the GPL is a result of that. My rule of thumb is to approach it from the angle of "what is the software worth if you take out what is linked?" - If the software can function without the linked code, it may not be derivative, but the actual question is whether it is useful without the linked code. Whether it carries out the tasks that the user needs the software for without the linked code. To me, it's more of a social question of how much the linkee is indebted to the linked. So no, I don't think I am confusing the two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lin...

equark 15y ago

Meteor packages all the JS together and minifies it. That's clearly linking.

skore 15y ago
No, that's packing and minification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Communicating_and_bundling_with_non-GPL_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Com...