What's "Linking" under the GPL?

Justin Walsh jwalsh at bigpond.net.au
Fri Nov 2 22:31:23 UTC 2001


According to Baruch Spinoza
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761574700 Baruch Spinoza
Freedom is the recognition of necessity
http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?refid=1861632668
necessity
He used it in the sence of law ie the law of cause and effect.
So it appears to me that "constraint" is the better word (scientifically).
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761576108       law
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761557105       science


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarkela" <sarkela at home.com>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: What's "Linking" under the GPL?


> Ok, is it possible to distinguish between being free
> and the state of freedom? One confusion may be the
> overloaded meanings on the word free. Free may imply
> use without payment or fee, or it may imply without
> constraint.
>
> In the first sense, GPL is certainly free.
> One does not need to pay any "owning" authority
> to use, reuse, and change GPL code as long as the
> terms of the license are met.
>
> Therein lies the rub. The fact that there is a license
> or copy(right|left) means that there is constraint on use.
> In my reading of the licenses, it seems that the SqueakL
> leaves the reuser with more degrees of freedom.
>
> An unusual quality of the GPL license is that the scope
> of its constraint exceeds the boundary of the code
> to which it was originally attached. The constraint
> is tied to the notion of "linking" and does
> indeed have the potential to affect (infect) a body
> of code that was developed with no knowledge of the
> linked GPL code.
>
> Conclusion, neither is inherently better or more good
> than the other. They are both licenses for free software.
> SqueakL provides certain degrees of freedom in reuse that
> GPL by intention does not. Hence, the reuser must respect
> the licensees intention. I suspect this is why RMS et al
> came up with the LGPL.
>
> John
>
> > From: "Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com>
> > Reply-To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 08:16:42 -0500
> > To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Subject: Re: What's "Linking" under the GPL?
> >
> > On Friday, November 2, 2001, at 05:29  AM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> The fact that I can't incorporate a GPL program in Squeak
> >>> proves the point.
> >>
> >> Well. It proves to me that SqueakL is not GPL compatible.
> >> It doesn't prove to me that GPL is "not free".
> >
> > Q.E.D.
> >
> > There is nothing about Squeak making it non-interoperable with GPL
> > software apart from the legal limitations imposed upon the use of GPL.
> > I cannot use Squeak, an open source, readily available software program
> > that any person can use for most any purpose without constraint, with
> > any GPL code.  Which is the "free software?"  By any definition of the
> > word "free," at least one proffered outside the FSF website, the answer
> > to reasonable people must be clear.  GPL is constrained, not free.  I
> > can't use.  It is not free.
> >
> > Goran, here, simply defines "free" to mean "subject to GPL," and then
> > announces his conclusions therefrom.  I think this putative retort
> > proves my point more clearly than anything I might have written.
> >
> > P.S.: It isn't just Squeak-L -- this applies to ANY MONOLITHIC IMAGE
> > LATE-BOUND SOFTWARE.  Unless the software is relicensable under GPL,
> > then the software cannot be used or distributed with GPL software.
> > Whatever this is, it is not freedom.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list