RE: licencing and modules

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Chadd [mailto:adrian@creative.net.au]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 5:10 PM
> To: Chemolli Francesco (USI)
> Cc: squid-dev@squid-cache.org
> Subject: Re: licencing and modules
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2001, Chemolli Francesco (USI) wrote:
>
> > > Seriously though, does it matter? If companies start releasing
> > > binary-only modules for squid, I'll be flattered. And since I bet
> > > they'll need to fix up some internal bit of squid to get a little
> > > more performance or flexibility, the GPLness is still there.

I don't see that as the core GPL goodness. Fastcache or whatever the
commercial NT port has released their code for their squid port. That
means that all the work to make squid run well on NT is publicly
visible. Fixing a little bit of squid to make the module interface work
better for (say) virus scanning pales by comparison to virus scanning
itself. Still the BSD projects flourish quite happilly without the viral
licence.

My main goal with this discussion is for the community to figure out
what the position should be, and whats steps are needed to get there.

If the position is, email RMS for clarification if you want to do a
binary only module, that's cool. ... but it would be nice to be clear on
the issue.

My preference is binary modules for squid are derivative.

> > Actually, dynamically-loaded modules, in RMS's explanation of
> > the GPL, form a "derived work" and thus MUST be GPL'ed as well.
> > This is a controversial matter, since it's not explicitly covered
> > in the GPL, but only in side-notes and declarations by Stallman
> > and others. For instance, Linus Torvalds
> > explicitly stated that in his opinion loading a Linux kernel module
> > does NOT constitute creating a derivative work.
> > But that has to be explicitly _allowed_ under the most common
> > interpretation of the GPL.
> > I suggest that we discuss the fact, and then explicitly add
> a statement
> > as an addendum to the copyright notices somewhere.
>
> Has it actually been tested? to me the GPL is more of a
> social contract
> than anything binding. Ie, I won't run out and activitely use
> GPL software in a custom project that we're going to wrap up and sell.
> Not in any fashion that would break the GPL. Not for fear of lawyers
> but because I try to be a semi-decent netizen.

Yup. I don't think the GPL has been tested. And its the social contract
angle that got me to bring the point up. To me the GPL goodness isn't
the re-contributed code - its the openness of the code. Re-contributed
code is more of a BSD thing the way I see it. And we need to be clear on
this before the capability hits the street.
 
> However, this hasn't stopped quite a lot of companies.
> (Squid, Linux, all things GPL..)
>
> > We might be "generous" and state that dynamically linking a
> module to
> > squid does not constitute a derivative work, or we might be
> Stallman-ish
> > and state that it does. Either way, I think that a
> statement will only
> > do good since it will remove this potential loophole either way.
> >
> > I hope I've been confusing enough.
>
> nope, you haven't been confusing at all. :-)
>
> Just read COPYRIGHT, note that:
>
> This software product, SQUID, is developed by a team of individuals,
> and copyrighted (C) 2001 by the Regents of the University of
> California, with all rights reserved. UCSD administered the NLANR
> Cache grants, NCR 9616602 and NCR 9521745 under which most of this
> code was developed.
>
> .. and that if we wanted to change the licence, we should
> rewrite squid
> from scratch and own the copyright ourselves.
>
> Who is up for that? :-)
>

Version 45 ? Seriously though, if the licence has a grey area would UCSD
agree to putting an explicit statement for binary modules on the bottom?
After all, we're not changing the copyright - we're explaining how use
of the squid run-time module mechanism (after all there will be headers
to use and interfaces they must meet) constitutes a derivative. (Or
doesn't, depending on majority opinion here.
 
>
>
> Adrian
>

Rob
Received on Fri Apr 20 2001 - 01:32:06 MDT