[sldev] Proprietary dependencies

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 2008-01-26, at 17:40, Dzonatas wrote:
> As for the license bit, "same old argument" meaning its been on  
> SLDev here many times and there is an unofficial faq on the wiki.

The difference is that Rob Linden has commented this time around.

> The GPL has nothing written in it to allow or not allow such  
> linkage. Certainly, the GPL doesn't say "hey.. you can't take out  
> that library because it would be a violation!"

The GPL covers creating derivative works. If you link against a  
shared library, you are creating a derivative work of that shared  
library. If that shared library is not licensed in a way that is  
compatible with the GPL, then you can not distribute the resulting  
code, unless you create an explicit exception... such as the FOSS  
exception or the exception for native OS components built into the GPL.

> How a message is sent through an ABI, API, or even over the  
> Internet is all the same in the eyes of the GPL.

That is not in fact the case. People have already tried to use shared  
libraries as cutouts for the GPL, and that doesn't work.

> The compile-time linkage or run-time linkage is not the determining  
> factor under the GPL.

I believe I made that point already.

> It could be perfectly fine to link a proprietary library with a GPL  
> program of vice-versa if both of those packages are separate works.

They're only separate works if there is a way to create a working  
executable without linking it against a library that is compatible  
with the GPL.

> Look at Mozilla, it is open-source. You can buy proprietary add-ons  
> to it. There is no violation there, and they have API linkage.

The Mozilla license does not require that the entire derived work be  
covered by the Mozilla license. If Mozilla was covered by the GPL  
this would not be possible unless they included an exception.