Re: licencing and modules

On Fri, Apr 20, 2001, Chemolli Francesco (USI) wrote:

> > Seriously though, does it matter? If companies start releasing
> > binary-only modules for squid, I'll be flattered. And since I bet
> > they'll need to fix up some internal bit of squid to get a little
> > more performance or flexibility, the GPLness is still there.
>
> Actually, dynamically-loaded modules, in RMS's explanation of
> the GPL, form a "derived work" and thus MUST be GPL'ed as well.
> This is a controversial matter, since it's not explicitly covered
> in the GPL, but only in side-notes and declarations by Stallman
> and others. For instance, Linus Torvalds
> explicitly stated that in his opinion loading a Linux kernel module
> does NOT constitute creating a derivative work.
> But that has to be explicitly _allowed_ under the most common
> interpretation of the GPL.
> I suggest that we discuss the fact, and then explicitly add a statement
> as an addendum to the copyright notices somewhere.

Has it actually been tested? to me the GPL is more of a social contract
than anything binding. Ie, I won't run out and activitely use
GPL software in a custom project that we're going to wrap up and sell.
Not in any fashion that would break the GPL. Not for fear of lawyers
but because I try to be a semi-decent netizen.

However, this hasn't stopped quite a lot of companies.
(Squid, Linux, all things GPL..)

> We might be "generous" and state that dynamically linking a module to
> squid does not constitute a derivative work, or we might be Stallman-ish
> and state that it does. Either way, I think that a statement will only
> do good since it will remove this potential loophole either way.
>
> I hope I've been confusing enough.

nope, you haven't been confusing at all. :-)

Just read COPYRIGHT, note that:

This software product, SQUID, is developed by a team of individuals,
and copyrighted (C) 2001 by the Regents of the University of
California, with all rights reserved. UCSD administered the NLANR
Cache grants, NCR 9616602 and NCR 9521745 under which most of this
code was developed.

.. and that if we wanted to change the licence, we should rewrite squid
from scratch and own the copyright ourselves.

Who is up for that? :-)

Adrian
Received on Fri Apr 20 2001 - 01:11:19 MDT