Hamda Binte Ajmal hamda.binte.ajmal@gmail.com writes:
Mark Evenson <evenson@...> writes:
Thank you for your response.
One more thing I would like to ask is that, I am using ABCL in a java project that is GNU GPL licensed. ABCL is not modified, just used as a library, and for executing lisp commands from Java project Such that JAVA PROJECT (GNU GPL) -> ABCL (GNU with classpath exception) -> Lisp code
Now my question is, would the GNU GPL license of Java project enforce GNU GPL on ABCL too which can enforce GNU GPL on my lisp code ?
So the dependency would be from this new java project onto your lisp code. This java project is distributed and licensed under the GPL.
It would be a little untasty to develop free software that promotes, by using it, privative software. But this can be done, and cannot influence the licensing of the privative software thus used and promoted.
For example, you can run GNU emacs on MS-Windows, and this doesn't force Microsoft to release MS-Windows under the GPL (unfortunately ;-)). But the availability of GNU emacs (and cygwin and other free software on MS-Windows) probably gives a certain number of users reasons to keep using MS-Windows…
Now, all the question is that of derived work. What is derived work of what? And the problem is that this is a legal question, more than a technical one.
http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html
Does the bundle made of your lisp code plus the GPL java library make a derived work of that java library, or of your lisp code?
I'm not sure either that no judge would ignore the time of creation of the modules to infer that one is derived work of the other. And technically, it could happen that something is designed as a derived work of something else that is not already created, but whose idea, API or design is already known. Also, both modules can be created in parallel during the same period, or there may be successive versions influencing one the other in both directions.
Notice that for a bundle to be a derived work of a part of it, there's no need to make any modification on that part. Any kind of "use" or "link" can suffice.
If Java Project + lisp code is a derived work of lisp code, then the license of Java Project won't matter, and the question is whether the license of lisp code allows to create such derived works?
If Java Project + lisp code is a derived work of Java Project, then if you distribute it, you will have to release lisp code under the GPL.
It is also possible that Java Project + lisp code be determined to be derived work of none, and everybody will be happy.
Really, these questions are idiocies imposed by lawers upon us. A simple way to avoid them, is to put everything under the GPL. The GPL has been designed to be compatible with and benefit from the Copyright laws, but those laws are flawed from the origin, therefore it's not surprising that the GPL may have some difficulties to be clearly enforced.