On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote: >>This brings up a different twist then. If the source code did >>not contain any license file at all, and did not have any license >>in any of the files, it would IMHO be licenseless. Wether or not >>the law would interpret it to be public domain, and hence useable >>however, or the law would interpret it to be unuseable without a >>specific license and require you to contact the author to get a >>specific license statement, would likely vary greatly from >>country to country, and jurisdiction to jurisdiciton. That would >>be one for a copyright/patent lawyer to answer. > >You seem to have funny ideas about legal issues.... > >If I put my bag on a table and turn my head, do you really believe >tat you may take it just because there is no name plate on it? > >If some piece of software does not come with a license note, this >only means that you have to ask the owner of the Authorship rights >and/or the Utilisation rights about terms of use and redistribution >rights. > >Andreas did ask Heiko and got ther permission to use the library >with his project. The fault of Andreas was that he did not propagate >the information he received from Heiko. > >Instead he put a GPL COPYING file into the toplevel directory. >This makes users assume that all code "below" the toplevel directory >is GPL code which is definitely wrong. > >Regarding "public domain": as it is now allowed to put code into the >public domain, it is obvious that your idea cannot apply. > > >>GPL'd software can have non-GPL'd parts, so long as the licensing >>terms of the other parts do not add any additional restrictions >>on the usage of the source code beyond what the GPL states. This >>is what allows you for example to use BSD (without the >>advertising clause) licensed code in GPL programs directly. The >>BSD license is "freer" than the GPL, so GPL'd software can use >>BSD licensed code in it. The BSD license that has the >>advertising clause however is incompatible with the GPL because >>it creates an additional restriction that must be met, and that >>conflicts with section 6 of the GPL, which states that you may >>not impose additional restrictions on the work licensed under the >>GPL. > >Wrong (see my other mail). > >In addition note: the BSD license carries other restrictions than >the GPL. If your postulation would be correct, then you would never be allowed >to merge GPL and BSD code. > >[ rest deleted because it did not include anything new or halfway corect ]
You're only contradicting me, but you're no lawyer either. My whole point, is that if a _POTENTIAL_ legal issue comes up concerning the GPL license, one should err on the side of caution, and if possible try to comply WITHOUT needing to seek legal council. If you can resolve any licensing issue easily enough without bringing the law into it, why not do so? And if it isn't easy to resolve (which the cdrdao issue seems very easy to resolve now), then one should consider their options, and consult a real attorney. Nobody should take what *I* say as being correct, and they also should not take what *you* say as being correct. Me and you arguing or debating over copyright laws or GPL is totally pointless because neither one of us is a lawyer, and also you're in Germany, and I am in Canada, and the legal systems of our two countries is completely different, not to mention, the GPL license itself was created in the United States, and the terminology used in it basically reflects the USA. Lets not bother arguing about this stuff please, it doesn't change anything or help anyone. My whole point is to bring up _potential_ legal issues, in hopes that something can be done to avoid them. There isn't any legal case going on, and so there is no need to argue like we're on opposite sides of a podium facing a judge. It's simple, by avoiding the NEED to have an attourney by simply resolving the situation in a way that everyone benefits, and in a way that everyone and their brother would agree is GPL compatible, the whole situation completely vanishes, and nobody needs to argue/debate about legalistics. Andreas has stated that he's decided to implement the replacement library code on his own, and GPL it, so GPL debate doesn't really accomplish anything because the issue is resolved, or will be in the near future when he's done coding it. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
