Re: LGPL question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Burditt) writes: > What *is* the source code to music? A non-DRM'd, non-encrypted copy > of the music? I would say that the score is the equivalent of the source code, the mixing details being like build instructions and the performance being the equivalent of the compiled binary. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL 3 and patents question
Alan Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No: This was even covered in GPL2: > > 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in > certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the > original copyright holder who places the Program under this License > may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding > those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among > countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates > the limitation as if written in the body of this License. But the problem with the situation wrt the OP is that in his country there are no software patents, and he does not know if the work he produces and licenses under GPL would violate any patents in any other country. All he knows is that his writing and using the code does not violate any patents which apply to him (as his country has no software patents). So how is he supposed to put a geographical restriction on distribution without the knowledge of the patent status in *every* other country? ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft > explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they > were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that? No. Because copyright law would not allow the creation of the additional copies beyond the one installed on the hard disk of the first computer on which it is installed. It just emphasises the restriction. I suspect that these clauses are a hangup from the days when software both came on a ran from floppy disk. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the > software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired > (become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that > you have access to the copy (you hold the CD your employer handed you > for the purposes of installing it on one of their computers, which you > are allowed to use but do not own) does not mean that you are the owner > of that copy, and it is the ownership of that copy (on whatever medium) > that gives you certain rights. Now ownership, no rights. Why do you have to be the 'owner' of the copy? Consider, for a moment, a different scenario. You borrow from a library a book containing a work which has passed into the public domain. Although you have not become the 'owner' of the work, you are legally entitled (under copyright law) to transcribe the work and create a copy. You then become the 'owner' of the copy you created. Why is a GPL'd program any different? The copyright owner has, under the terms of the GPL, given permission for copies to be made as long as certain conditions are met. These conditions do not mention being the legal owner of work which is copied, just that source code must be made available (by one of the 3 mechanisms stated), that the copy and any derivative works must be subject to the same licence, and that no extra conditions be added. The preamble of GPL2 states "to make sure the software is free for all its USERS" (my emphasis). Is this not saying that it is the user of the software, not just the 'owner' of the copy, that has the rights outlined in the GPL? So surely, all that is required is legal access to a copy not legal ownership of the copy. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What about "licensee" don't you understand? The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee. I can see nothing in the GPL which states that. On contrary the preamble states that it ensures that the software is free for all users (ie those using the program) and reads as though anyone who has access to the program (eg to run it) can accept the licence and become a licensee. Having become a licensee, you can then copy, modify and/or distribute the software subject to the conditions in the licence. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to do > with it. The GPL grants rights to the owner of the copy, not to you. > Since you have not bought or otherwise acquired ownership of the copy, > you don't get the rights associated with its ownership. No. The owner of the physical copy does not have the authority to permit creation of additional copies or modifications. Only the copyright owner has that authority. The copyright owner has, by licensing under the GPL, given permission for copies and modifications to be made and for the these (possibly modified) copies to be distributed subject to certain conditions specified in the GPL. You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise the rights given in the GPL. For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book and CD to the library? You do not need the library's (owner of the physical copy you copied) permission to do so. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD >> containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not >> entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book >> and CD to the library? You do not need the library's (owner of the >> physical copy you copied) permission to do so. > > Not? You mean, I can just walk into a library and start scanning with > a hand scanner or a digital camera from media that happen to contain > public domain material, without actually borrowing the stuff out? No I am not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that I can borrow a book from the library and once it is in my possession I can do with it anything allowed by copyright law. I can quote from copyright works therein (within the restrictions set by copyright law), if there is any public domain works in the book I can make a copy of such works. If there is a CD accompanying the book and if that CD contains works licensed under the GPL, I am suggesting that the GPL gives me the right to "accept the licence" and make copies etc. even though I am neither the owner of the physical copy nor has the owner given explicit permission to make copies. I still do not see why the licence only applies to the owner of the physical copy and not to anyone who (legally) has access to the work (for whatever purpose). To answer the point raised about the postman, the reason I think this is different is that postman only has legal access to closed package and not to the contents thereof. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The assertion that the GPL gives you the right to make unlawful copies > is obviously incorrect, as it is not a right the copyright holder can > grant. GPL or otherwise, is the copyright holder not the only person who *can* give permission to make copies? ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Once again, I do NOT have to be the owner of the CD to accept the > license. I agree. Section 2, in the part about the notice to be displayed on interactive programs, further reinforces this. "c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. This explicitly states, what the preamble hinted at, that *ALL USERS* (that is anyone running the program not just the owner of the physical media on which the program resides) of the GPL'd program have the right to accept the licence and become a licensee. This clause is basically telling owners of a copy who have modified it that they must inform users of the modified program (not just people to whom they distribute copies) the rights that the GPL provides them. Taking this in conjunction with clause 3b, even if the user is not allowed to copy the binary from the system on which it is being run then they are, under the terms of the GPL allowed to obtain the source code of the program (being as it has to be made available to *all* third parties who request it). ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Only in the very specific case of programs that normally read commands
> interactively, and if they have been modified ("If the _modified_
> program _normally reads commands interactively_"). The beginning of the
> clause is very specific, so you're straining it by claiming that it
> applies to all GPLed works. It's not even all interactive programs, it's
> programs that read commands interactively.
Agreed. However it must not be forgotten that when the GPL was written
(and this same clause is also in version 1) most interactive computing
was done on multi-user systems via terminals. Therefore it was very
likely that the user (to whom the notice has to be displayed) was not
the owner of the copy of the software which they were running. This
clause requires that users (of a modified program which reads commands
interactively) be told that they *do* have the right to redistribute
the program under the conditions of the GPL. This implies that the GPL
requires that licensee of such programs must either permit users to
make copies themselves or provide copies to users on request.
I doubt that the intention was to provide more rights to users of
modified programs which read commands interactively than to users of
any other software licensed under the GPL. Therefore by extrapolation
it is saying that by licensing the work under the GPL (which is
required when an original work is modified) the licensee (for the
moment take that to be the owner of the physical copy) must permit
users of the work to obtain copies (and thus become licensees
themselves) which they are then free to distribute and/or modify under
the terms of the GPL.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into > contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted by > the FSF itself. Do you not agree that section 2 states that the users of modified[0] programs which accept commands interactively[1] must be given (by the licensee) the opportunity to acquire a copy of the program, become a licensee and therefore be allowed to copy, modify and distribute the program? This seems to be saying that, for this specific class of programs, if the owner of the copy (the licensee) gives (someone) permission to use (ie run) the program then permission must also be granted (to that same person) to acquire a copy. If this applies (explicitly) to modified programs which accept interactive commands, then by implication it also applies to other modified programs which are licensed under the GPL. The interpretation is not as wide as to apply to all who come into contact with the program, just those whom the licensee allows to run the program. I can see nothing in the FAQ you quoted which states that this is not the case, but one part 'However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case' describes a situation where the licensee has to provide a copy of the work. [0] In other words, the original creator of a work does not have to allow users to obtain copies, but those who create derivative works have to do so. [1] Which is a class of program which at the time the GPL was written (when multi-user computers were much more common than 'personal' ones) was very likely to be run by people (users) other than the owner of the copy. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The fact is that the GPL price-fixes IP at zero. The fact is that > zero is below cost of IP creation and hence is predatory. As for the > rest, The GPL does not fix the price of anything. It gives freedoms in the sense of a 'free man' not in the sense of 'free of charge'. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Burditt) writes: > Now, I, Evil Bill Fence Door, copyright this patch, sell it with > onerous copy protection, and for $1,000,000 a copy. The license > that comes with it prohibits re-distribution of the patch. Note > that I'm *not* re-distributing any GPL-licensed software. It's up > to the customer to get it himself. But the recipient has no need to re-distribute the patch. Applying the patch generates a derived work of the software being patched. So, if the original software is licenced under the GPL then the derived work will be as well. Therefore the recipient of the patch is allowed, under the terms of the GPL, the distribute the patched software. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
