Re:How to correctly use code you didnt write
by tzs on Sunday March 11, 2012 @06:40PM
(#3691487)
There is case law that says that calling functions from something else does not make your code a derivative work of that something else. This issue arose when people started making unauthorized third party games for video game consoles that made use of code in the ROMs of those consoles.
The SFLC says that calling a function does make your code a derivative work of that function's code. I've never seen any analysis from them that explains why they think the video game cases don't apply. They are a free software advocacy organization--they naturally tend to take the most free software friendly interpretation possible of law, and I think that often takes them a little past what the law actually is into what they wish it was.
It would be interesting for someone to write a simple blogging system with a plugin interface that is compatible with Wordpress' plugin interface, and put it in the public domain.
Then anyone making a plugin could claim that they actually wrote it for the public domain system, and that is what they are a derivative work of rather than Wordpress. It would be amusing to see what the SFLC would make of that.
Something like this actually happened once, in the early '90s. Someone was distributing a secure email system that used RSA. It used RSA via the RSAREF library, which was freely distributable but not free software. The email system was distributed in source form. When you compiled it, you could compile it to use either the BSD arbitrary precision math library or GMP. Basically, the source had #if statements that selected whether it should assume the BSD library or GMP. (I believe GMP was under GPL, not LGPL, at the time).
Stallman didn't like this. The author of the email system then wrote a toy arbitrary precision library that had the same interface as GMP, and that satisfied Stallman.
The SFLC says that calling a function does make your code a derivative work of that function's code. I've never seen any analysis from them that explains why they think the video game cases don't apply. They are a free software advocacy organization--they naturally tend to take the most free software friendly interpretation possible of law, and I think that often takes them a little past what the law actually is into what they wish it was.
It would be interesting for someone to write a simple blogging system with a plugin interface that is compatible with Wordpress' plugin interface, and put it in the public domain.
Then anyone making a plugin could claim that they actually wrote it for the public domain system, and that is what they are a derivative work of rather than Wordpress. It would be amusing to see what the SFLC would make of that.
Something like this actually happened once, in the early '90s. Someone was distributing a secure email system that used RSA. It used RSA via the RSAREF library, which was freely distributable but not free software. The email system was distributed in source form. When you compiled it, you could compile it to use either the BSD arbitrary precision math library or GMP. Basically, the source had #if statements that selected whether it should assume the BSD library or GMP. (I believe GMP was under GPL, not LGPL, at the time).
Stallman didn't like this. The author of the email system then wrote a toy arbitrary precision library that had the same interface as GMP, and that satisfied Stallman.