[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Intellectual Property II

From: oaky
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property II
Date: 7 Feb 2006 22:54:41 -0800
User-agent: G2/0.2

As to the definition of "derivative work," the uncertainty is
experienced by those who would like to make proprietary uses of
GPL'd code, and are unsure whether a particular way of making a
proprietary enhancement to a free work will certainly or only
arguably infringe the free developer's copyright.

Nah... the uncertainty is experienced by those who read the FSF FAQ.

What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal
question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper
criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes,
rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the
semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are
definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run
linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means
combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs.
So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are
separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are
intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too
could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger

A protocol exchange would qualify (in Moglen's world) as an example of
"exchanging complex internal data structures", like a GPL'd daemon
talking with a proprietary client app or vice-a-versa.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]