Re: epiphany-extensions license

[chrysn <chrysn fsfe org>]

>
> > First off, what exactly is the derivative work?  Is it (a) the
> > extension itself, or (b) the combined running program of Epiphany +
> > any loaded extensions?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > For (a),  I question whether or not including header files, which
> > generally don't really contain any code, merely an interface
> > description, constitute creating a derivative work.  Would it not be a
> > derivative work if I simply dlopen()ed the library and still used the
> > functions?  (This is essentially what Python does.)  What if I used
> > only a "clean room" document or header file?
> >   
>   
if you use dlopen(), you still use the underlying data structures, which
were originally created by the author of the main program, and therefore
copyrighted. (as are the header files, even if they don't contain "real
code")
if you do a clean room implementation or use a "well defined interface"
(the fsfe document is -- intentionally, i presume -- a bit fuzzy  about
that), you can consider it a new program.

i think it is important to understand that the gpl can not impose limits
on the writer of related software that are not already covered by
classical copyright (which is super-strict by default).

>>> >>> http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/epiphany-extensions/trunk/COPYING.README?view=markup
>>>       
> > Those terms are for plugins that already exist and are written; they
> > don't really apply to our totally new one.
>   
as far as i understand, they are not; the top line says "Epiphany's
license terms include the notice below".
otherwise, linking to mpl stuff would be impossible because the
developers of the extensions would have to have explicit permission by
all original authors for each extension.


chrysn


ps sorry for out-of-time transmission; forgot to set the recipient correctly