Can Java code EVER be GPLd, at all?

[Arandir]

On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Jules Bean wrote:

> The real issue is the thorny problem of 'derived work'. Ignoring
> 'clickwrap' licenses [which, IMHO, are not free software], a copyright
> license can only affect someone else's work to the extent that it is a
> derived work of your work.
> 
> AFAIK, *no one knows* to what extent library linking creates a derived
> work. It is a 'fuzzy' issue, which would be decided on a case-by-case
> basis by a magistrate or a judge. To some extent, the author of the first
> program can influence this decision - a phrase like 'I consider works of
> the form XXX to be a derived works of this one' in the license text *will*
> influence a judge. But, it won't rule the day, if the judge considers it
> to unwarranted.

I doesn't have to be this fuzzy. Books are *not* derivitive of their
bibliographies. When you're talking about linking, you're usually talking
about libraries. The sole and intended purpose of libraries is to be linked to.
It doesn't matter if you think my app is derived from readline or not, the fact
is that I am using readline in the manner in which it is intended. To restrict
this is to restrict the *use* of readline. Should anyone ever take a developer
to court over the single line "#include <gpllib.h>", rest assured that the
prosecution will lose.

> 3) 'primetools2' can now be linked happily against either 'gmp' or 'hmp'.
> In this case, it's pretty clear that it is a derivate work of neither.

Imagine what would have happened if the Harmony project had been completed. KDE
could then be linked to either Harmony or to Qt. If Redhat then came along and
called distributing KDE a crime, they would look like utter fools.

> The problem is, people on this list are searching for hard lines.  I see
> arguments like 'but if that is true, then by logical extension, every
> shell script is a derived work of bash'.  There are no hard lines.
> 'Derived work' is an important concept, but not one that can always be
> perfectly delineated.

The lack of hard lines is precisely why I won't use any GPL'd libraries with my
own code. Even though I am clearly within the bounds of the law by doing so,
there are many, many people who don't agree, and I don't have the funds to
defend myself from spurious lawsuits.

> If an application 'A' uses a library 'B' in what might be described as an
> 'essential' way, then, irrespective of the physical mechanism of linkage
> (static/dynamic/run-time/compile-time/corba) I would expect 'A' to be
> considered as a derived work of 'A'.  Especially if 'A' is distributed
> together with 'B', and especially if 'A' won't function without 'B'.

You're playing with semantics here. Lawyers like to do this, but users do not.
Every use of a library is "essential" from the perspective of that library.

Think on this: You have every freedom in the world to write Free Software that
uses Microsoft's MFC, Borland's OWL, Rogue's Tools++, etc. But in the land of
the Free, you are not free to write BSD applications that link to GPL libraries.

> So, in the java example, if you GPL your java library, and a commercial
> company distributes a java program using it, then I would expect the GPL
> to apply - even though the technicalities of linking differ from the C
> case.

Why exactly would you call this condition "freedom"?

-- 
Arandir...
_______________________________
<http://www.meer.net/~arandir/>