[Gllug] Can I link GNU AGPL code with GPL 2 code?

[salsaman at xs4all.nl]

On Fri, February 15, 2008 11:06, Justin Perreault wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 07:28 +0100, salsaman at xs4all.nl wrote:
>> On Fri, February 15, 2008 01:44, Justin Perreault wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 04:40 +0100, salsaman at xs4all.nl wrote:
>> >> On Wed, February 13, 2008 17:15, Progga wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 04:58:02PM +0100, salsaman at xs4all.nl wrote:
>> >> > Thanks!  I am going for it then :-)  It's relying on several PEAR
>> >> packages
>> >> > but
>> >> > PEAR uses the PHP license which sounds more like BSD sans
>> advertising.
>> >>  So
>> >> > I
>> >> > hope that's okay as well.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The PHP license might be problematic. The FSF license page says:
>> >>
>> >>  PHP License, Version 3.01
>> >>
>> >>     This license is used by most of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft free
>> >> software license. It is incompatible with the GNU GPL because it
>> >> includes strong restrictions on the use of "PHP" in the name of
>> >> derived products.
>> >>
>> >>     We recommend that you not use this license for anything except
>> PHP
>> >> add-ons.
>> >
>> > If it is not incorporating the packages but just linking to them
>> > externally it is likely not an issue, but you would need to include
>> both
>> > licenses when distributing if you ship the packages with. Then each
>> > license would be used applied to each part individually instead of on
>> > both together. iirc
>> >
>> > -Justin
>> >
>> > --
>> > Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
>> > http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
>> >
>> >
>>
>> No, linking counts as a combined work. That is why binary Nvidia drivers
>> cannot be distributed with the Linux kernel, for example.
>>
>> There seems to be some discussion of this here:
>> http://pear.php.net/manual/en/faq.devs.php
>>
>>From the link you provided:
>
> What licenses are allowed in PEAR/PECL?
> ...
> This hair splitting over linking, derivation and aggregation has been
> going on since the beginning of time. My stance is that you can indeed
> ship PHP licensed PEAR components on the same cd or in the same tarball
> as GPL'ed code because I see it as an aggregate work. This changes if
> you take PEAR code, modify it and copy-paste it directly into your own
> work. Then it moves from aggregate to derived. But the intent of the
> PEAR components is to be used in aggregate form. The PHP license allows
> you to use it in derived form as well, of course, but then you should be
> choosing a license other than the GPL for the derived work.
> ....
> A bit further on from this the following link is provided:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
>
> What is the difference between an “aggregate” and other kinds of
> “modified versions”?
>
>         An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs,
>         distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL
>         permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the
>         licenses of the other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible.
>         The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate
>         under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that
>         the each program's individual license would grant them.
>         ...
>
>
> It seems true that the nvidia modules cannot be put into the kernel but
> that is not the same as shipping them beside the kernel.
>
> -Justin
>
> --
> Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
> http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
>
>

Justin,
I think you are partly correct. AIUI, there is no problem shipping nvidia
modules with the kernel *in source form*, however once you ship binary
modules and binary kernel, you are breaking the terms of the GPL, since
the kernel + module is considered a combined work.

This is why there are such workarounds as downloading the nvidia kernel
from the nvidia site.

It has to be that way, otherwise you could take somebody's GPL code,
modify it so it links with your library, then release your library as
binary only under a restrictive license.

Reading the link to the PEAR site, they seem to be pretty anti-GPL. My
guess is most of the PEAR developers come from a Mac or Windows
background, and are not used to the freedoms that the GPL provides to
downstream developers.

Gabriel.
http://lives.sf.net


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug