An unauthorized translation has no legal value and must say so explicitly. It should be labeled as follows: Only the copyright holders of the program can legally allow this exception. If you wrote the entire program yourself and your employer or school doesn`t claim copyright, you`re the copyright holder, so you can approve the exception. However, if you want to use parts of other GPL-covered programs in your code, you cannot allow the exception for them. You must obtain permission from the copyright holders of these programs. While we have no legal objection to you creating a modified license this way, we hope you`ll think twice and don`t. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and this incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of various free software licenses is a burden in itself. Note that there may also be legal issues with combining some nonfree libraries with GPL-licensed free software. Please see the question about GPL software with GPL-incompatible libraries for more information. You always have the legal alternative of not using our code.
This central point of contention is whether non-GPL software can legally bind statically or dynamically to GPL libraries. Opinions differ on this. The GPL clearly requires that all derivative works of GPL-covered code itself be under the GPL. Confusion arises regarding the use of GPL libraries and the grouping of GPL software into a larger package (possibly mixed into a static binary). It is ultimately not a question of the GPL itself, but how copyright defines derivative works. There are the following points of view: See also choosealicense.com and tldrlegal.com/. On 6 September 2006, Project gpl-violations.org won legal proceedings against D-Link Germany GmbH for D-Link`s use of parts of the Linux kernel in storage devices distributed by them. [80] The decision stated that the GPL is valid, legally binding, and must be brought before a German court. [81] What does it mean to combine two parts in one program? It is a question of law that is ultimately decided by the judges. We believe that an appropriate criterion depends both on the communication mechanism (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls in a common address space, etc.) and on the semantics of the communication (what types of information are exchanged). We protect your rights in two steps: (1) copyright in the Software and (2) offering this license, which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the Software.
When a program is linked to a library, whether static or to a shared library, the combination of the two is legally a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary general public license therefore only allows such a link if the whole combination meets its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License allows for more lax criteria for linking other code to the library. It also added a provision that «stripped» digital rights management (DRM) of its legal value, allowing people to violate anything a court could recognize as DRM on GPL software without violating laws like the DMCA. [28] Software developer Allison Randal argued that GPLv3 as a license is unnecessarily confusing to laypeople and could be simplified while retaining the same terms and legal force. [56] In August 2003, SCO stated that it believed the GPL had no legal validity and that it intended to sue sections of code allegedly copied from SCO Unix into the Linux kernel. This was a problematic attitude for them, as they had distributed Linux and other GPL code in their Caldera OpenLinux distribution, and there is little evidence that they had the legal right to do so, except under the terms of the GPL. [ref. In February 2018, following the decision of the Federal District Court, the appeal and the (partial) referral of the case to the District Court, the parties reiterated their remaining claims and presented a plan to proceed with a final judgment. [75] If they form a single combined program, it means that combining the GPL-covered plug-in with the nonfree main program would violate the GPL.
However, you can solve this legal problem by adding an exception to your plugin`s license and giving permission to link it to the main nonfree program. The third draft was published on March 28, 2007. [33] This draft contained language designed to prevent patent agreements, such as the controversial Microsoft-Novell patent agreement, and limited anti-tivoization clauses to a legal definition of a «user» and a «consumer product». In addition, the section «Geographical restrictions», the likely deletion of which had been announced at the launch of the public consultation, has been explicitly deleted. The fact that proprietary module A communicates with GPL-licensed Module C only through X11-licensed Module B is legally irrelevant; Basically, module C is included as a whole. The GPL was designed as a license, not a contract. [54] In some common law jurisdictions, the legal distinction between a licence and a contract is important: contracts are enforceable under contract law, while licences are enforced under copyright. However, this distinction does not make sense in the many jurisdictions where there are no differences between contracts and licenses, such as civil law systems. [55] If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, as well as small macros and small online functions (ten lines or less), the use of the object file is not restricted, whether or not it is a derivative work. (Executables containing this object code and parts of the library are still covered by Section 6.) A legal document is sort of like a program. Translating it is like translating a program from one language and operating system to another. Only a lawyer who speaks both languages can do this – and even then, there is a risk that a mistake will be made.
c) You must license the entire Work under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This license, together with any applicable additional terms of Section 7, therefore apply to the entire work and all parts thereof, regardless of how they are packaged. This license does not give permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate that permission if you received it separately. A compilation of a covered work with other distinct and independent works which, by their nature, are not extensions of the covered work and which are not combined with it to form a larger program in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an «aggregate» if the compilation and the resulting copyright are not used to: limit access to or legal rights of users of the compilation beyond what the individual works allow. The inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not mean that this license applies to the other parts of the aggregate. According to Richard Stallman, the most significant change in GPLv2 was the «liberty or death» clause, as he calls it.[18] – Section 7. The article states that licensees may only distribute a GPL-licensed work if they can fulfill all the obligations of the license, despite any other legal obligations they may have. In other words, the obligations of the licence must not be separated on the basis of conflicting obligations.
This provision is intended to prevent either party from using a patent infringement action or other litigation to interfere with users` freedom under the license. [18] Thus, copyleft uses copyright to achieve the opposite of its usual purpose: instead of imposing restrictions, it grants rights to others in a way that ensures that rights cannot be withdrawn retrospectively.