DLL/GPL/proprietary link revisited

[Rasmus Emil Møller]

David Wooley wrote:

>> I am an open-source newbie, please forgive me if my question is
 off-topic.
 >[DJW:]
 >It is off topic.

If that is truly the case, I shall try not to persevere my posting to this
 group.
I would be most thankful, if someone would be so kind as to direct me to
 the
proper forum (FYI I _did_ read the GPL FAQ - it doesn't cover my q.)

>> However, it is in the line of a few, long recent threads of this list.
>>
 >[DJW:]  Very few people read charters before posting; you
 >didn't.

 <Blush> You are right. However, I have searched in vain for a list charter
 for this list - maybe this list would attract fewer undesirable people, if
 there was a link to the list charter, say at the webpage

 http://opensource.org/licenses

 where I subscribed. One of the threads I am referring to is
 "Static v. dynamic linking" - a rather long thread with no
 "off topic" warnings.

>> Naturally, my DLL would have to be GPL'ed as it is a derivative work.
 >[DJW:]
 >Only if you want to distribute it to someone outside of
 >your organisation.  The GPL only restricts distribution,
 >not creation or use.

I knew that :) - I intend to distribute the DLL if there are no legal
 issues.

>> But is it legal for me at all? Or is it an improper use of Mr.
Oberhumers
>> work on LZO to address the shortcomings of proprietary programs?
 >[DJW:]
 >The Free Software Foundation generally considers dynamic
 >linking to be the creation of a derivative work, so they
 >would probably consider redistribution of a composite
 >with your software or the backup software to be illegal.
 >
 >Note:  this applies to the full GPL; the LGPL would allow
 >such use, but with certain conditions to be fulfilled.

 I conclude from the GPL license v2 and GPL FAQ and the threads
 on this list concerning the DLL linking, that it is a borderline
 case; hence my posting to this forum.

>> Ideally, one of the two vendors would adopt my dll and support it
>> for a price - otherwise my management would probably not dare
>> to implement it. sigh.
>>
 >[DJW:]  If they act as your agent, it might be OK.  But
 >they will not be able to redistribute the combined product
 >and the FSF would probably object to their destributing it
 >as an add on.  They require a more arms length coupling to
 >other software.
 >
 >Also note that the FSF is against software patents, so GPLed
 >code will not implement patented algorithms for which permsission
 >may be refused or royalties demanded.  There are exceptions, but
 >they result in the GPL being void in any country that does have
 >patent issues.  That means that either of your suppliers could
 >re-implement the algorithms, at least for sale in the countries
 >where the GPLed libraries would be valid.

 As far as I can see, there is no "combined product" - the DLL with
 source could be distributed on its own. I do not have source code
 or libraries from any of the two vendors, I only have the specs
 defining the call syntax of my DLL, which is a parallel to the UNIX
 utilities compress/uncompress - except that data transfer is using
 dynamic DLL calls at run time instead of stdin/stdout.


Rasmus Møller


Tel: +44 (0)20 8401 9000 Fax: +44 (0)20 8401 9100
http://www.bts.co.uk           http://www.bureauexpress.com


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3