Re: [tlug] Free versus open: a rant

[Joe Larabell <larabell@???>]

> But no, it doesn't matter.  B0Ti seems to think that as long as _some_
> purpose of the software can be fulfilled without calling any
> proprietary functions it's free software, but that's wrong.  If _any_
> part of a GPLed work calls a proprietary function, even if the use of
> the function is optional, the _whole work_ is legally redistributable
> only with permission of all copyright owners.

I don't believe that's true. So long as you don't actually distribute the
proprietary "warez" with your product, there should be nothing wrong with
making the function call. That would be even more clear (legally) if there
were a known API through which this chunk of warez were hooked into the
application (which is probably the case here).

For example, if you had a 100% GPLed browser with an API for plugins. And
if I wrote a whiz-bang plugin to do sojme kind of 3D rendering -- but
being a major a**, I released it under a proprietary license -- would that
have any effect on the browser's "Free" status just because it can call my
plugin?

I tought it had already been established that GnomeMeeting could work with
other codecs and that this one was options, albeit necessary for certain
functions. Well my plugin would be necessary for this fancy 3D viewing.
Without it you could not access my 3D pages. However, if it didn't exist
you *still* couldn't access those pages so the existance of the non-Free
plugin doesn't have any effect on the application itself.

If there is an ad for the proprietary warez in GnomeMeeting, that would
bee cause for complaint (it sounded like there was). If the application
didn't function at all without the proprietary part, it would indeed make
a mockery of the concept of "Free". But other than discouraging developers
from writing proprietary stuff in the first place, there is no legal
reason not to add support for it into your Free application if the benefit
is great enough.

> ... Ie, just embed a patented algorithm in
> hardware and you can distribute a derivative of a strong copyleft
> program specialized to that "hardware", emasculating the GPL, no?

I don't think that's unique to hardware. Nvidea distributes non-Free
drrivers for their video cards, they follow the cconventions for video
device drivers, their drivers work well with Linux, but Linux is still
Free even though it calls the drivers as soon as it sees an Nvidea card.

Speaking of which, isn't the hardware of nearly every video card on the
market proprietary? What's the difference?

> Also, suppose Shawn were to spend JPY 1 million to acquire a
> commercial license for the algorithm, and wrote a software driver,
> which he most generously plans to give away, libre and gratis.  Guess
> what?  _He can't._  He has to buy the whole patent (well, the right to
> distribute it as free software, which is effectively the whole
> patent), or he can't distribute the driver under GPL.  But if it's
> hardware, it's OK!

No... Even if the algorithm were embedded in the hardware, he still could
not distribute the RTL source code from which that hardware chip was
fabricated (not under most hardware IP licenses at least). It's like
buying a commercial C compiler, you can use the function libraries in your
product and distribute the binaries but you cannot re-sell the libraries
as such. Same thing in hardware and/or software. I think the difference
lies in whether you're distributing the source which implements the
patented algorithm (ie: the actual IP) or simply using the algorithm in a
product and distributing the product. You can buy the rights to one
without the other. In fact, most intellectual property licensing works
that way.

--
Joe Larabell -- Synopsys VCS Support      US: larabell@example.com
http://wwwin.synopsys.com/~larabell/   Japan: larabell@?jp