[MPlayer-users] Re: GPL Licencing (correct subject this time)

[Roger Fujii]

Felix Buenemann <atmosfear at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, 10. November 2001 20:38, you wrote:
> > > You are wrong, win32 dlls are loaded runtime and aren'T statically linked
> > > with mplayer nor needed by mplayer to function, This is allowed by the
> > > GPL!
> > No, you are.  READ the document - the multimedia DLLs are are not "major
> > components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system)" for
> > linux, so it is NOT allowed unless you make a specific exemption.
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WritingFSWithNFLibs
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ManyDifferentLicenses
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat
> It talks about linking, we aren't linking with win32 libs, we only load
> (exetute) them at runtime, it's like doing a fork of an external process and
> is not prohibited.

No, it is NOT.  See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
FSF (wrongly, IMO) tries to make a distiction between fork/exec and plugin
loading.  As I said before, READ THE DOCUMENT.  If you are going to dispute
what I say, at least have the courtesy to provide your references.

> Otherwise we couldn't even play an avi file that was not created by GPL
> software, that'd be stupid!

No, because they make a distinction between data and exectuables.  Though
I would think something like a GNU flash creator would be pretty grey in this area.

=?iso-8859-2?B?R+Fib3IgTOlu4XJ0?= <lgb at lgb.hu> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Roger Fujii wrote:
> > Yes.  This is the fatal flaw with the GPL.  The GNuts who hasn't read the
> > GPL do not realize that:
> >   1) The only reason why ANY propriatary drivers (like video..) can be linked with
> >      the linux kernel is because Linus made a specific exemption for this case.
> >   2) GPL programs cannot legally use propriatary software.  So, this makes GPLed
> >      java programs that cannot be legally run with the SUN jvm, or in this case,
> >      a strict GPLed mplayer cannot legally use any nonGPLed win32 dlls.
> 
> Ehhhh, it's not that simple imho.

it *is* that simple - or at least FSF says it is.

> And I think GPL is great. Arpi thinks it's not. It's his opinion and this is my.
> No problem. But IMHO GPL is about source level things (but correct me if I would be wrong).

This is incorrect.

> So, you can't compile non GPL source into GPL Linux kernel.

nor can you LEGALLY link against it (without that exemption)

> But imho it's not a problem to RUN a COMPILED (java virtual bytecode) with a non-GPL java VM.

Yes, it is.  See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat

> And you can compile then shell (without any source) a program compiled with GPL compiler.

only because they consider fork/exec a clear separation.

> [Kernel modules links against kernel so it's okey to insert a non-GPL kernel
> module on runtime]

only because linus made an EXPLICT exemption for this case

http://www.bespecific.com/dialog/bedevtalk/archive/981221/00000021.htm
 
> Yes, GPL often seems to be restrict, but it only protects the rights of
> authors. Of course everything in this world has got disadvantages as well ...

remove 'seems to be', and I'll agree.

> > > It has nothing about code stealing. It should allow using binary code for
> > > GPL program, but shouldn't allow using GPL for non-GPL (closedsource) stuff.
> > 'binary' is such a loose term nowadays.   All modifications to GPLed code should
> > be GPLed, stuff that is separate should be allowed to coexist.
> 
> So, why is it legal to:
> 
> 1. shell web services provided by GPL web server, server side scripting
> languages and so on?

a) apache is not GPL
b) the FSF makes a distinction between scripts (ie text) and binaries.
   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL

> 2. run non-GPL stuffs under Linux which can reach API of Linux kernel via
> int 0x80 (or via libc, but I don't know if libc is GPL or LGPL, so I don't
> want to mention it now)

I believe the libraries are LGPL.  And there *IS* an explict exemption that
says the GPL of the linux kernel does not cover user apps -