Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)

[Alexander Terekhov]

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> The source code is not linked with the libraries. The combination of
> the (compiled) source code and whatever library it uses occurs in the
> system running the program.
> 
> As it is extremely difficult to distribute a running program, this
> clause would pertain to linked programs that contain both a
> transformation of the source code (the object) and all or part of the
> libraries (where we could argue ad nauseam whether the instructions

Ha.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6028746-2.html
(Defender of the GPL)

<quote>

One of the questions with the GPL is about how tightly you may link
GPL code with non-GPL code, for example, when you compile a GPL program
and it uses other code in a software library. Have you done anything
to define how tightly GPL code may be linked with non-GPL code? Under
what circumstances is that permitted and not permitted?

Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we
believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked
to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely
optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under
the GPL and must be released.

</quote>

So much about "the GPL rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights" the FSF been telling to the Judge in court of law. To 
quote day5done,

<quote>

The GPLv3 states:

"2. Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the Program. The output from running it is
covered by this License only if the output, given its content,
constitutes a work based on the Program. This License
acknowledges your rights of "fair use" or other equivalent, as
provided by copyright law."

Anyone see the words "This License explicitly affirms your
*unlimited permission* to run the Program"?

When you link dynamically to GPL'd code you are "running"
(executing) the GPL'd Program in every sense of the word. The
linked code is object code that is executed in memory.

Moglen states: "We reasserted that code dynamically linked to
GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely
optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work
under the GPL and must be released."

Since when does "unlimited permission" mean "--is part of the
source code of the work under the GPL and must be released."?

I thought "unlimited permission" meant "unlimited permission".
Hmmmmm.

Perhaps Eben Moglen is drooling down his Gerber bib again...

Somehow your proprietary object code being executed in memory
is magically transformed into GPL'd source code. -- Sounds somewhat
like SCO claiming "all your code is mine".

Do you suppose the wife and kids also get GPL'd?

</quote> 

regards,
alexander.