Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
* Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050519 19:52]: Moral rights only allow you to act against mutilation of the work and lack of proper attribution. And you have the right to decide on _first_ publication. But once you publish, the work is on the market and your rights are exhausted. I don't see a basis for doing a recall. INAL, but German law also has some revocation paragraphs: The German copyright laws, called something line author rights law Urheberrechtsgesetz (e.g. http://www.netlaw.de/gesetze/urhg.htm) has paragraphs about revocation: §41 Rückrufsrecht wegen Nichtausübung which could be translated to revocation right because of non-use, which is quite uninteresting. It mainly allows to terminate rights when you give exclusive rights and the person makes no use of it. §42 Rückrufsrecht wegen gewandelter Überzeugung This could be translated as revocation right because of changed opinion/belief. For free software it is not very applicaple in my eyes, as the law mandates in that case: - the author has to compensate adaquately - the revocation is not active before compensation is payed. - the licensee has three months to name the amount of compensation - if the work is to be used again, the former licensee has to be offered equivalent rights under fair conditions. So this seems to be mainly for things like pictures or other art the artist wished he never made. Compensating every user, even if only the costs for downloading are compensated, would be far to expensive. Also note that as far as I was explained, the author is always the person who made it. Author's rights are not refereable. The nearest equivalent of copyright transference are exclusive licenses. And as these morale rights are considered part of human rights, they are not transferable and not bounding contracts about their use can be made. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
O Mércores, 18 de Maio de 2005 ás 21:46:48 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez escribía: That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts) code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use *that* code under the GPL. About the only thing that can be done is Assuming that EU laws aren't involved, which allow the author to take all copies of their work out of circulation (but the laws, or at least Spanish law, also say that the author must pay damages, and if they decide to return the work to the market, it must be under reasonably similar conditions). -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
Jacobo Tarrio wrote: O M?rcores, 18 de Maio de 2005 ?s 21:46:48 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez escrib?a: That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts) code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use *that* code under the GPL. About the only thing that can be done is Assuming that EU laws aren't involved, which allow the author to take all copies of their work out of circulation (but the laws, or at least Spanish law, also say that the author must pay damages, and if they decide to return the work to the market, it must be under reasonably similar conditions). That's an aspect of EU copyright law I'm not aware of. Can you tell me which Berne provision or EU directive this is? Moral rights only allow you to act against mutilation of the work and lack of proper attribution. And you have the right to decide on _first_ publication. But once you publish, the work is on the market and your rights are exhausted. I don't see a basis for doing a recall. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
O Xoves, 19 de Maio de 2005 ás 19:52:28 +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet escribía: That's an aspect of EU copyright law I'm not aware of. Can you tell me which Berne provision or EU directive this is? Please, next time just say directly that's not so and it'll be easier on my health. Thanks. And that's not so, true. I hadn't gotten it right the first time, and I won't say EU now. Spanish law says (the ugly translation is mine): The following un-disclaimable and inaliable rights belong to the author: [...] 6. Retiring the work from the market, due to a change in their intellectual or moral convictions, after a payment of damages to the holders of exploitation rights. I said that the translation was ugly. So scrap my previous e-mail. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 19/05/05, Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Spanish law says (the ugly translation is mine): The following un-disclaimable and inaliable rights belong to the author: [...] 6. Retiring the work from the market, due to a change in their intellectual or moral convictions, after a payment of damages to the holders of exploitation rights. Seems like Spanish law is a bit on the wrong here. This goes directly against the freedom of goods enshrined in art. 28 et seq. EU treaty. As soon as a work is rightfully released on the market, the author looses every economic right he has to ensure the free flow of goods on the internal market. check out http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0250:EN:HTML art.4 (c) Not that you can do anything against that law, but in a litigation it is a rightful defense. Kind regards Batist
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Point taken. However, the GPL clearly states the conditions in section 6: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. To me, that says Once the cat is out, it's out for good. So, if you as the author of GPL software, try to restrict someone that has already received your software under the terms of the GPL, then you violate the license. Since you are the author, it doesn't affect you so much, since you are also the copyright holder. And what, exactly, is the licensee's recourse if the licensor violates the license in this way? Are you mistaking the GPL for a statute? The law about whether a license without an explicit term can be revoked at will varies from one contract law jurisdiction to another. See Walthal v. Corey Rusk at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/981659.html -- and observe that appeals courts sometimes screw up too (note the scathing commentary regarding the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Rano v. Sipa Press). Even in the Ninth, you probably wouldn't want to be using Rano as a central part of the argument in a case today. The only other alternative is that the GPL is not enforceable. That would probably call into question the validity of all software licenses. However, I am not lawyer (I'm sure you guessed that by now), so I will refrain from speaking further on this subject. IANAL either, but this sweeping statement is obviously nonsense. The typical EULA is a dog's breakfast of enforceable and unenforceable constraints, but there's getting to be quite a bit of statute and case law about how to construe a EULA under any given jurisdiction's contract law. A court of fact's analysis of the GPL terms would in any case have no value as precedent in a later court of fact where some EULA (or for that matter the GPL) is under discussion. The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in the FSF FAQ. Yet in many ways the actual GPL text, properly construed, is sounder than the typical EULA. I don't believe that it bans all of the things that the FSF says it does (notably dynamic linking GPL and non-GPL code). But the only thing I can see that might jeopardize its validity with respect to real derivative works is the difficulty of construing a legitimate implementation of that automatically receives language in Section 6, which a court would have to construe in terms of conventional rules of agency to sub-license. Incidentally, if there was so much controversy about this and the origins and rights to the code have been in question, why has SourceForge let the project continue for 2 years? I imagine that it is not their responsibility that to comb through every piece of code housed on their servers. However, I would imagine that it would be part of their due diligence to verify whether a project like this can even exist on their servers in the first place. SourceForge is not the tightest run ship on the planet. They are probably not protected by any kind of common carrier exemption, but they also probably figure they can wait until they get a cease and desist letter. In the real world, most violations of the law go unpunished unless they involve major bodily harm, justify a claim for large monetary damages, run afoul of the ascendant political agenda, or really piss someone off. Cheers, - Michael
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in the FSF FAQ. For the record, I disagree that this faq is patently false. It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than professional advice). Furthermore, that FAQ is far and away better than anything you've proposed. -- Raul
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in the FSF FAQ. For the record, I disagree that this faq is patently false. It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than professional advice). The FAQ is not merely an interesting commentary -- it is the published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all inquiries. Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe that he can have no reasonable basis under the law in his jurisdiction for many of the assertions that it contains, particularly the assertion that the GPL is a creature of copyright law and not an ordinary offer of contract. That may yet become a problem for him personally as well as for the FSF. This is not a fine point of law, it is first-year law student stuff that anyone with a modicum of familiarity with legalese can easily verify for himself or herself by the use of two law references (Nimmer on Copyright and Corbin on Contracts) found in every law library in the US. These law references are probably also available from most law libraries in any English-speaking country and the bigger ones anywhere in the world, as are their equivalents for other national implementations. The fact that all licenses are (terms in) contracts is also blatantly obvious from a few hours' perusal of the primary literature -- statute and appellate case law -- which is available for free through www.findlaw.com. Don't believe me; look it up for yourself. Furthermore, that FAQ is far and away better than anything you've proposed. If that is a challenge to produce an adequate summary of my writings to date on the topic, I think I'll take it up, in my own sweet time. It won't be legal advice (IANAL), but it will be firmly grounded in the applicable law to the best of my ability, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say for the FSF FAQ. Cheers, - Michael
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/19/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html Thanks, Roberto. The (moderately) explicit bit I had in mind is in fact still in the current FAQ, I just missed it: ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfInterpreterIsGPL ) ... The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. But you are quite right to provide the philosophy link, since that's the one that (IMHO, IANAL) goes way over the top: quote Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated (though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and non-free. We can't possibly list all the possible contract restrictions that would be unacceptable. If a contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably decide it is non-free. /quote This text is still present in http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html . Cheers, - Michael
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
Hello, (Sorry for just intejecting into the discussion like this, but) >From what I understand of the history of WASTE. At one time, NullSoft did infact release WASTE under the GPL. However, AOL (NullSoft's parent company) didn't like this, and that message on NullSoft's website is because of that. (And thus, it was origianlly authorized by NullSoft, but not authorized by AOL.) Now, from what I understand, once you release something under the GPL, you cannot un-release it. And if that is the case, then this software is OK. See ya See ya On 5/18/05, Mirco Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 14:20 +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote: Hi all! I'm on the way of making a debian package for Waste, and I would have the folowing two questions about your software: Does the licence really reflect GPL? This arise because of this: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/waste/waste/license.cpp?rev=1.1view=auto WASTE - license.cpp Copyright (C) 2003 Nullsoft, Inc. Copyright (C) 2004 WASTE Development Team - What does Nullsoft have to do with Waste? And also this: //ADDED Md5Chap - THIS PART IS GPL LICENSE!!! TOUCH AND DIE! Followed by a full binary array. ...I googled for WASTE I found this: http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/According to Nullsoft this is UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE and is not allowedto be distributed!Please delete all source and package copies you may have and do not letit enter debian! --Regards,Mirco 'meebey' BauerPGP-Key:http://keyserver.noreply.org/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xEEF946C8 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-Version: 3.12GIT d s-:+ a-- C++ UL$ P L++$+++$ E- W+++$ N o? K- w++! O M-V? PSPE+ Y- PGP++ t 5+ X++ R tv+ b+ DI? D+ G++ e h! r-++ y?--END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- BodyID:12667657.2.n.logpart (stored separately)-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com___ Wikibooks, Free Open-Content Bookshttp://wikibooks.org/
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
This topic has been beat to death and is the cause for most of the devs bailing throughout the life of the project (legal concerns). There are a couple old articles on /. that should cover all the arguments (in the comments)...but I'm sure you'll find them all over. here's one: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/31/1259206mode=nestedtid=120tid=126tid=187tid=95 On 5/18/05, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, (Sorry for just intejecting into the discussion like this, but) From what I understand of the history of WASTE. At one time, NullSoft did infact release WASTE under the GPL. However, AOL (NullSoft's parent company) didn't like this, and that message on NullSoft's website is because of that. (And thus, it was origianlly authorized by NullSoft, but not authorized by AOL.) Now, from what I understand, once you release something under the GPL, you cannot un-release it. And if that is the case, then this software is OK. See ya See ya On 5/18/05, Mirco Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 14:20 +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote: Hi all! I'm on the way of making a debian package for Waste, and I would have the folowing two questions about your software: Does the licence really reflect GPL? This arise because of this: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/waste/waste/license.cpp?rev=1.1view=auto WASTE - license.cpp Copyright (C) 2003 Nullsoft, Inc. Copyright (C) 2004 WASTE Development Team - What does Nullsoft have to do with Waste? And also this: //ADDED Md5Chap - THIS PART IS GPL LICENSE!!! TOUCH AND DIE! Followed by a full binary array. ... I googled for WASTE I found this: http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/ According to Nullsoft this is UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE and is not allowed to be distributed! Please delete all source and package copies you may have and do not let it enter debian! -- Regards, Mirco 'meebey' Bauer PGP-Key: http://keyserver.noreply.org/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xEEF946C8 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GIT d s-:+ a-- C++ UL$ P L++$+++$ E- W+++$ N o? K- w++! O M- V? PS PE+ Y- PGP++ t 5+ X++ R tv+ b+ DI? D+ G++ e h! r-++ y? --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- BodyID:12667657.2.n.logpart (stored separately) -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com ___ Wikibooks, Free Open-Content Books http://wikibooks.org/
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
Hello, Yes, you are correct. I am assuming that. As far as I can tell, even if AOL didn't approve it, NullSoft, being the owners of the code, are allowed and able to release the code under whatever license they want to release it under. (Whether they'll get in trouble or not from AOL, for doing so, is another question.) It seem to me that they got in trouble for doing so. And then tried to take things back. But the GPL doesn't allow for that. But yes,... all of it is based on the initial assumption that whomever originally released the code under the GPL was allowed to. See yaOn 5/18/05, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:40:06AM -0700, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: Now, from what I understand, once you release something under the GPL, you cannot un-release it. And if that is the case, then this software is OK. You're assuming the people who released it had the right to do that in thefirst place. I can _not_ take the leaked Windows 2000 source code, release itunder the GPL and then claim it is okay to distribute. /* Steinar */--Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com___ Wikibooks, Free Open-Content Bookshttp://wikibooks.org/
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
[Charles Iliya Krempeaux] It seem to me that they got in trouble for doing so. And then tried to take things back. But the GPL doesn't allow for that. It seems to me that this is another of those things everyone takes for a postulate just because the FSF said so. Rather like the assumption that copyright law gives the GPL scope over libraries whose interfaces you use. I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably this is grounded on the basis of her having received no consideration, since it's a bit harder to revoke someone's right to use something they bought and paid for. It is also possible that she's a looney. Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable for any serious deployment. Note, however, that but it *can't* be that way because if it is, we're all in trouble is not a very strong argument. But yes,... all of it is based on the initial assumption that whomever originally released the code under the GPL was allowed to. s/whomever/whoever/ (: Peter signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
Peter Samuelson wrote: I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably this is grounded on the basis of her having received no consideration, since it's a bit harder to revoke someone's right to use something they bought and paid for. It is also possible that she's a looney. That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts) code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use *that* code under the GPL. About the only thing that can be done is to quite releasing new versions of the software or release newer versions under a more restrictive license. That, or hope everyone who receives the code violates the GPL (since that is about the only you lose your rights under it after the fact). Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable for any serious deployment. Note, however, that but it *can't* be that way because if it is, we're all in trouble is not a very strong argument. But it can't be done, period. Reference: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts) code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use *that* code under the GPL. There are some exceptions to this. For example, if you're not the copyright holder, your offer doesn't count. Worse, in the U.S., copyright can be revoked after 35 years (with lots of legal fine print which makes this difficult to talk about simply). But none of that seems relevant here. (And none of it seems specific to the GPL -- I think this would be just as true for BSD.) Or, at least... the assertion by nullsoft that nullsoft wasn't authorized to release WASTE seems to raise the question of whether they're authorized to claim it wasn't released. [If they weren't authorized to release it, who would have been?] The only reason I can see for Debian to not want to package WASTE is that as a general rule we try to go along with the wishes of upstream developers. But, ultimately, that kind of issue is up to the package maintainer. -- Raul
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/18/05, Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably this is grounded on the basis of her having received no consideration, since it's a bit harder to revoke someone's right to use something they bought and paid for. It is also possible that she's a looney. If the GPL were the creature of copyright law that the FSF proclaims, or the unilateral contract that some apologists believe, that would be a real problem. Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences! Happily, there is no defect of consideration in the GPL, as the covenants of return performance (principally the obligation to offer source code) are non-trivial promises with some value to the licensor. Thread at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00209.html ; note references to Planetary Motion v. Techplosion 2001 later in the thread. Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable for any serious deployment. Note, however, that but it *can't* be that way because if it is, we're all in trouble is not a very strong argument. It's not a meaningless argument, though; there's a doctrine of reliance that can substitute for acceptance under some circumstances, and might be used to estop a copyright holder from yanking an ostensibly perpetual license if all else failed. IANAL, etc. Cheers, - Michael
Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Samuelson wrote: [snip] Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable for any serious deployment. Note, however, that but it *can't* be that way because if it is, we're all in trouble is not a very strong argument. But it can't be done, period. Reference: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free. I would advise you to be very, very wary of assertions made by the FSF about the legal import of the GPL. Philosophy is strong stuff and has been known to cloud the mind. Case law is a more trustworthy guide to what is and isn't legally possible, not to mention what can and can't be construed into the terms of the GPL. Cheers, - Michael
