GPL et bibliothèque

Pour ceux que ça intéresse, il y a en ce moment plusieurs débats
dans debian-legal et linux.kernel sur la notion d'oeuvres dérivée,
toussa. J'y ai lu des arguments assez forts, je trouve (mais JNSPA),
comme quoi l'effet copyleft est, au moins en partie, une foutaise
juridique (je parle du cas d'un programme utilisant une bibliothèque
GPL).

Exemple tiré de debian-legal:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-lega...00376.html

<quote>

To quote Title 17 Sec. 101:

A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other
modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of
authorship, is a ''derivative work''

[]

A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and assembling
of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated,
or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole
constitutes an original work of authorship. The term ''compilation''
includes collective works.

</quote>

Si j'utilise une bibliothèque, sans en changer une seule ligne,
j'ai l'impression d'être dans le cas "compilation", et non
oeuvre dérivée. Or la GPL dit :

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

<quote>

The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a
"work based on the Program" means either the Program or any
derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work
containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or
with modifications and/or translated into anotherlanguage.
(Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".)

</quote>

On dirait qu'il y une sorte de problème avec le bout de
phrase "any derivative work under copyright law" et le
bout de phrase "that is to say, a work containing the
Program".

J'ai aussi trouvé :
http://lists.debian.org/debian-lega...00379.html

<quote>
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi...tise6.html discusses the
differences between derivative works and compilations, and quotes a
congressional report that elaborates:

Between them the terms "compilations" and "derivative works" which
are defined in section 101, comprehend every copyrightable work that
employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There is
necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically
represent different concepts. A "compilation" results from a process
of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging
previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether the
individual items in the material have been or ever could have been
subject to copyright. A "derivative work," on the other hand,
requires a process of recasting, transforming, or adapting "one or
more preexisting works"; the "preexisting work" must come within the
general subject matter of copyright set forth in section 102,
regardless of whether it is or was ever copyrighted. {FN31:
H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 at 57}

See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks
both that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original
work of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and
that mechanical (non-creative, ergo non-copyrightable) transformation
of the original does not make a derivative.

<quote>

Finalement, je suis tombe sur ça :
http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GL18.pdf

Pour conclure : le législateur (américain ?), dans sa grande
sagesse, a su préserver les libertés individuelles et l'intérêt
collectif, même si ce n'est pas toujours agréable pour certains
auteurs.

Mon avis : un auteur qui distribue une bibliothèque sous GPL
ne peut pas m'empècher de redistribuer son oeuvre _inchangée_
en tant que composant d'une de mes oeuvres.

Plus sérieusement, la question, au fond, est "qu'est ce qu'un
auteur a le droit d'écrire dans une licence ?" Le rédacteur
de la GPL a-t-il le droit de dire "cette licence SIGNIFIE que
vous DEVEZ mettre votre programme sous GPL si vous utiliser
readline, quelque soit ce que peut dire la loi sur le copyright ?

--
I'll have to insist that you stop using readline unless
you make the program free.
--Richard Stallman