From: Jim Cain Date: 2003-07-09T10:14:39+09:00 Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby. Daniel Carrera wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:35:47AM +0900, Ray Cote wrote: > > >>Hi Daniel: >>Thanks for your comments. >> >>I believe these two items from the GPL FAQ cover the question: >> >> >>--- >>If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that >>mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? >>Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library >>--- >>You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to >>build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your >>program mean I have to GPL my program? >>Yes. >>--- > > > Well, it's not that simple. Ruby modules are not linked into your program the way > a binary library would be. On the other hand, they are not exactly external > programs either. So it's not quite clear there. > > Judging from the first question, I am now leaning towards saying that yes, it is a > derivative work, on the basis that (I think) a "require" actually does "stick in" > the module code into your program, hence making it a derivative. Perhaps someone > could correct or confirm this. > > So, yes, it seems that you are right on that. > > > >>There are a variety of ways of 'hiding' code. One of the projects >>we're currently designing consists of a sealed box delivered to the >>user, a sort of 'payment appliance' if you will. The end user not >>only has no access to the code on the machine, they have no need for >>access. However, under the GPL, I would be legally bound to >>distribute source code for the program on that machine. > > > Well... you'd be legally bound to provide it upon request. I apologize if this is > a dumb question, but if the user has no use for the source anyways, what's the > problem with the GPL? > > The user doesn't need the source. You don't have to provide the source unless > they want it. What's the problem? > > > >>If I have a choice of working in an environment where the licenses >>promote commercial use or working in an environment where I need to >>check and perhaps get permission for special licenses, I'm going to >>take the path of least resistance. > > > Well... don't mixup "commercial" and "propietary". I still don't understand why > the GPL would inhibit you from selling your commercial product. I'm sure that > there's something obvious I'm not seeing. Perhaps you can clarify the problem? > It's my understanding that the GPL requires anything that links to a GPL-licensed library to have a GPL license as well. Of course in the case of shared libraries, the executable and library are in separate files. But when the thing is actually being executed, the object code all occupies memory at the same time, if code in the library is being used. According to the GPL, this is a derived work based on the GPLed library, and so the GPL applies to the executable *in memory*.