[License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution

[Lawrence Rosen]

Mike Steglich asked:

> Is it permitted to have a program licensed under GPLv3 and an EPL software


> in one binary distribution? There is no share of source code ore use of a
library.

> The GPL binary executes the EPL binary as an external process (as a
command

> line tool).  

 

Mike Milinkovich replied:

> The answer, as always, is "it depends".  Have you read [1] and [2]? 

> They capture the basic positions of both the FSF and the Eclipse
Foundation. 

> However, they do focus primarily on the plug-in scenario. 

> 

> [1] http://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/epl-gpl-commentary/

> [2] http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/using-the-gpl-for-eclipse-plug-ins 

 

 

For the record, and even though you've heard this from me before, I'll say
again that the analysis in the FSF FAQ is wrong.

 

There is no copyright or GPL license restriction on combining GPL and any
other open source or proprietary software by functional linking *as long as
one does not thereby create a derivative work*.

 

Derivative work analysis in copyright cases is admittedly complicated. There
have been several excellent articles in the International Free and Open
Source Software Law Review (http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr) that address
this topic far better than anything you'll read in the FSF FAQ. 

 

A combined GPL and EPL work is typically released as one single binary for
functional purposes only and the combination has nothing to do with the
expressive nature of their source code. As far as I am aware, derivative
work analysis in copyright law explicitly excludes the functional aspects of
the works in question. I would appreciate hearing any legal citations to the
contrary.

 

Clearing up this FUD would allow us to answer Mike Steglich and others in
the FOSS community simply: Be free to combine GPL and EPL and any other
non-GPL software in one binary or source code distribution. Just don't
distribute derivative works of the GPL software except under the GPL.

 

/Larry

 

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 

3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482

 

 

 

From: license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org
[mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Mike
Milinkovich
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:03 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution

 

Mike,

 

The answer, as always, is "it depends".  Have you read [1] and [2]? They
capture the basic positions of both the FSF and the Eclipse Foundation.
However, they do focus primarily on the plug-in scenario. 

 

[1] http://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/epl-gpl-commentary/

[2] http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/using-the-gpl-for-eclipse-plug-ins 

 

 

From: license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org
[mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Mike Steglich
Sent: January-12-12 10:59 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution

 

Hi,

Is it permitted to have a program licensed under GPLv3 and an EPL software
in one binary distribution? There is no share of source code ore use of a
library. The GPL binary executes the EPL binary as an external process (as a
command line tool).  

 

I interpret that as an aggregate: 

 A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works,
which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are
not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the
compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or
legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works
permit.  Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this
License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. 

 

Am I right or not?


Thanks 

Mike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120112/8b73c352/attachment.html>