I think I could easily create examples on Symbian OS where only dynamic linking is involved that are unquestionably “derived works”, while it could be quite reasonable to statically link a library and have the resulting product as an original work. Ironically one of the key words is the “inheritance” that Larry chooses to describe what happens when linked software falls under the GPL.

Except of course in my case I’m talking about inheritance in C++. If I sub-class an exisiting plug-in type that is provided in a dynamic link library I could add a single extra function that uses some of the existing ones. I believe my contribution would be (without question) a derived work (it would be like adding an extra paragraph in the middle of a book that referenced other parts – completely meaningless without the rest of the book).

On the other hand, I could statically link to a library and only use a single simple function in it. My work would undoubtedly not be a derived work (and note that I don’t need to modify the original code of the library to statically link to it, despite what Larry suggests).

I think the fairly common understanding the user side Linux code is OK while device drivers and kernel modules is a grey area is pretty accurate. A Linux device driver cannot work without the driver framework (GPL’d) that it is written for. Similarly for a file system plug-in module. However, in both those cases, the amount of original code written is likely to be significantly greater than the amount of framework code used.

Existing copyright law and precedent doesn’t really cover this situation well as far as I am aware. It needs to be tested in court. It seems fairly likely (call me cynical here) that if there is a test it will probably come down on the side of some big corporate that’s not playing be the rules because they can afford much better lawyers (and the judge and jury – if there is one – won’t understand software sufficiently to make an informed decision either).

Mark

I think I could easily create examples on Symbian OS where only dynamic linking is involved that are unquestionably “derived works”, while it could be quite reasonable to statically link a library and have the resulting product as an original work. Ironically one of the key words is the “inheritance” that Larry chooses to describe what happens when linked software falls under the GPL.

Except of course in my case I’m talking about inheritance in C++. If I sub-class an exisiting plug-in type that is provided in a dynamic link library I could add a single extra function that uses some of the existing ones. I believe my contribution would be (without question) a derived work (it would be like adding an extra paragraph in the middle of a book that referenced other parts – completely meaningless without the rest of the book).

On the other hand, I could statically link to a library and only use a single simple function in it. My work would undoubtedly not be a derived work (and note that I don’t need to modify the original code of the library to statically link to it, despite what Larry suggests).

I think the fairly common understanding the user side Linux code is OK while device drivers and kernel modules is a grey area is pretty accurate. A Linux device driver cannot work without the driver framework (GPL’d) that it is written for. Similarly for a file system plug-in module. However, in both those cases, the amount of original code written is likely to be significantly greater than the amount of framework code used.

Existing copyright law and precedent doesn’t really cover this situation well as far as I am aware. It needs to be tested in court. It seems fairly likely (call me cynical here) that if there is a test it will probably come down on the side of some big corporate that’s not playing be the rules because they can afford much better lawyers (and the judge and jury – if there is one – won’t understand software sufficiently to make an informed decision either).

Mark

>"given all your recent posts about what you're been reading, I'm beginning to wonder if you did any research on open source prior to making the Symbian Foundation decision"

Sorry for giving the wrong impression! Those who know me better know that I’ve had been seriously tracking open source issues since (at least) June 1998, when the phrase “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” first cropped up on Symbian’s primary internal discussion database.

My philosophy as regards knowledge is that, for an important and complex topic (such as Open Source), it’s never wise to rest on your laurels and think that you’ve nothing more to learn. That’s why I’m continuing to read new books on Open Source, to challenge and improve my understanding. (And that’s also why I’ll be at the Open Source in Mobile conference in Berlin in around 10 days time.)

// dw2-0

>"given all your recent posts about what you're been reading, I'm beginning to wonder if you did any research on open source prior to making the Symbian Foundation decision"

Sorry for giving the wrong impression! Those who know me better know that I’ve had been seriously tracking open source issues since (at least) June 1998, when the phrase “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” first cropped up on Symbian’s primary internal discussion database.

My philosophy as regards knowledge is that, for an important and complex topic (such as Open Source), it’s never wise to rest on your laurels and think that you’ve nothing more to learn. That’s why I’m continuing to read new books on Open Source, to challenge and improve my understanding. (And that’s also why I’ll be at the Open Source in Mobile conference in Berlin in around 10 days time.)

// dw2-0

It turns out the founding counsel of the Open Source Initiative, Larry Rosen, actually is a lawyer. And he’s written several times that no court is going to interpret “derivative work” the way RMS does, because it is a specific legal term with a specific legal meaning. Rosen made this point back in 2000, so it’s hardly new.

The real problem is that the FSF is doing everything it can to avoid a court test that would set a precedent. Does this means that it fears it would lose? Or is this just FUD to get people to do what FSF asks rather than what the contract says?

It turns out the founding counsel of the Open Source Initiative, Larry Rosen, actually is a lawyer. And he’s written several times that no court is going to interpret “derivative work” the way RMS does, because it is a specific legal term with a specific legal meaning. Rosen made this point back in 2000, so it’s hardly new.

The real problem is that the FSF is doing everything it can to avoid a court test that would set a precedent. Does this means that it fears it would lose? Or is this just FUD to get people to do what FSF asks rather than what the contract says?

I’d argue that the GPL is unquestionably ambiguous and that the question of dynamic linking with GPL’d code is an extremely grey area. That’s because (among other things) it is a matter of law and has not been tested in court enough for a clear precedent to be set.

It really doesn’t matter what Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds think or state. Whether or not something is considered a derived work will be down to the details of specific cases until some clear guidelines are established through precedent.

The advantage Linus has over RS is that people are likely to accept his interpretation in the case of linking to the Linux kernel since he is one of the copyright owners that would have to prosecute any infringement.

Mark

P.S. I’m also very pleased that the Symbian Foundation has decided to avoid all of this by choosing the EPL.

I’d argue that the GPL is unquestionably ambiguous and that the question of dynamic linking with GPL’d code is an extremely grey area. That’s because (among other things) it is a matter of law and has not been tested in court enough for a clear precedent to be set.

It really doesn’t matter what Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds think or state. Whether or not something is considered a derived work will be down to the details of specific cases until some clear guidelines are established through precedent.

The advantage Linus has over RS is that people are likely to accept his interpretation in the case of linking to the Linux kernel since he is one of the copyright owners that would have to prosecute any infringement.

Mark

P.S. I’m also very pleased that the Symbian Foundation has decided to avoid all of this by choosing the EPL.