Re: GPL and other licences
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:39:42 +0100: > Too bad that in the courts judges rule, and not Wallaces and Terekhovs. Don't you mean Wallaces and Grommits? ;-) -- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a"). ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 1 February 2006 NYCBUG: Johnny Lam on Xen and the Art of SysAdmin
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:33:11 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Announcements only list for NYCBUG (announcements are not cross-posted to other lists)." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Announce-NYCBUG] Wednesday NYC*BUG Meeting: Johnny Lam on Xen & the Art of Sysadmin February 01, 2006 Johnny Lam: Xen and the Art of SysAdmin 6 pm, Soho Apple Store at 103 Prince Street This presentation will be about using Xen in the real world to simplify the maintenance of BSD systems. There will be a short introduction to Xen and how it works, an in-depth look at the details of one particular Xen setup along with some performance results, and how using Xen simplifies life as an admin. About the speaker: Johnny C. Lam is a senior pkgsrc developer whose main area of work is improving the portability and the capabilities of pkgsrc. He has headed the organizing of two pkgsrcCon meetings in Europe to promote a better understanding of pkgsrc infrastructure development. He is still looking to dupe someone else into taking maintainership of the Perl package. ___ Announce-NYCBUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/announce-nycbug Distributed poC TINC: Jay Sulzberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Corresponding Secretary LXNY LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization. http://www.lxny.org ___ 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
claudio quotes: > "When you distribute a covered work, you grant a patent license to the > recipient, and to anyone that receives any version of the work..." That refers to patents you own and which would otherwise be infringed by users of the work. If you don't own any patents it is irrelevant to you. It would be ridiculous to require that you grant licenses to patents you do not control or even know about. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ 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
Barry Margolin writes: > Section 12 says "if a patent license would not permit royalty-free > redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly > through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License > would be to refrain entirely from distribution." He neither needs nor has a license so this does not apply. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
Isaac writes: > There was a lot of rhetoric about the FSF wanting to change this for GPLv3. > I don't know if that happened... There is no hint of it in the draft. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ 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
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Claudio Nieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let's say I take GPLv3ed Program xyz and add to it some code. I don't > conduct any investigation about wether my code infringes on any patents, > as in Switzerland this is a non-issue. So I give modified xyz to a friend > here in Switzerland, who gives it to person X who lives in the USA. Section 12 says "if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution." However, Section 13 contains the following way to get around this in your case: "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." -- Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fung wrote: > > > > Dear folks, > > > > I am currently doing some research on open source licences and while > > reading the GPL licence the following question arose: Distributing a > > derivative work combined from software licensed under [whatever] > > Combining software doesn't create a derivative work under copyright > law. If anything, it creates a compilation, not a derivative work. ... > > consider the case of two scientific papers which reference each other. > The fact that paper B calls paper A (references it for support) does > not make B a derivative work of A. This remains true whether B and A > are published together in a symposium (analogous to static linkage) or > separately (analogous to dynamic linkage). Computer programs are > defined in 17 USC as literary works But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a copy of the other. To use your analogy to scientific papers, it would be like copying sections of B into A rather than referring to them in a footnote. I think a compilation usually means that the original works can be recognized as distinct components of the result. A conference proceedings book is a compilation. But when the originals are comingled as I describe above, the result is a derivative work, not a compilation. -- Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** ___ 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
Hi, > This isn't something related to the GPLv3, it is related to how patent > law works. So it is your task to check that you are not violating any > patents, and you cannot put the burden on someone else. This is one > of the major problem with software patents, it is impossible to check > that you are violating single or several patents, they are written in > a very vauge language. Not really. Living in a country which does not have software patents, patent law does not concern me a lot. It would only if I start selling my software e.g. into the US. And I have to fear only a lawsuite from the side of the patent holder. I fear GPL3 makes the situation worse for me, and want to know if this is true. Let's say I take GPLv3ed Program xyz and add to it some code. I don't conduct any investigation about wether my code infringes on any patents, as in Switzerland this is a non-issue. So I give modified xyz to a friend here in Switzerland, who gives it to person X who lives in the USA. With GPL2 I wouldn't see any problems for myself. The point I'm unsure about is this sentence in GPL3: "When you distribute a covered work, you grant a patent license to the recipient, and to anyone that receives any version of the work," === Can Person X sue me for violating GPL3 because of that sentence and ask me for damages, because e.g. X was sued in the US from the holder of a sotware patent? If yes, than there is quite some difference between GPL2 and GPL3 for anyone living in countries without software patents. They can contribute to GPL3 software only, if they check that nowhere on the planet the added code violates a software patent, even though in their place, this is not an issue. Does GPL3 really move some burden from contributors in area having software patents to contributors in ares not having software patents? claudio -- Claudio Nieder, Kanalweg 1, CH-8610 Uster, Tel +41 79 357 6743 yahoo messenger: claudionieder aim: claudionieder icq:42315212 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.claudio.ch ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:27:38 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rex writes: >> I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a >> server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping >> website), you don't have to GPL your modifications. > > It's bloody well obvious. Read the license. > >> Can anyone point me to an official statement on this by the FSF or >> another authority? > > Ask your lawyer. There was a lot of rhetoric about the FSF wanting to change this for GPLv3. I don't know if that happened, but somewhere in the FSF or RMS explanations of why they needed a new version of the GPL ought to be some pretty official discussion of this issue. I heard somewhere the the MySQL people had their own opinion about this. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:52:32 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >To clarify it a bit: providing source code is not the question >here. I just want to know if it is legal to use the differently >licensed software in such manner, namely: personal/internal use >eventhough the licences exclude eachother > > This boils down to: Can you break the law at home? Of course you > can't. So the same applies to the GPL. Since you cannot mix two > incompatible licenses legally, then you cannot do this in the privacy > of your own internal use. It would in the end still be a violation of > copyright law. No it does not quite boil down to that. What it boils down to is whether the GPL grants permission to so mix the software at home as long as you do not distribute the combination. Looking at the GPL, it seems to me that modifying GPL software and not distributing it merely requires providing some notices in the software. Unless the non GPLed software has some usage restriction that prevents you modifying or combining the other code with GPL software, I believe that the GPL allows you to combine or modify as you like on your own system for your own use. In fact, you could use the combination internally within a single business organization as doing so does not constitute distribution. No significant GPL restriction kicks in until you try to distribute your combination. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU General Public License?
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Fung wrote: > > [... the GPL ...] > > The GPL talks about legal regime in the GNU Republic in a nearby > alternative universe where First Sale is nonexistent, IP is not > property (it belongs to the state), "Intellectual property" indeed is not property and belongs to the state _under_ _current_ _laws_. The originators have _limited_ rights for exploiting them, limited in extent and time. Copyright and patents _expire_, not by an act of the state confiscating the said "intellectual property", but by the state relinquishing his special protection for time-limited exclusive exploitation, granted in exchange for the act of publishing, passing the work into the public. > and where distributing software under any "license" other than the > GPL (which is akin to a lottery or any other permits from the state > and is of course not a contract or a property right in the GNU > Republic) or "GPL compatible" license (but that's for extra > regulation fee) is a felony under GNU law. You are babbling. Of course you were babbling above as well, but I chose to use that as an excuse for showing something people tend not to realize. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ 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 wrote: [...] > I can't see the FSF bleeding just because the court tries to pound > some coherence into Wallace's claims before dismissing them. "The GPL allows free access to software programs, subject to some limitations. This does not mean that the GPL necessarily aids competition as contemplated by the Sherman Act, as FSF contends." regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU General Public License?
Hey misc.int-property, enjoy GNUtian view on IP (it "indeed is not property and belongs to the state _under_ _current_ _laws_"). GNUtian David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Fung wrote: > > > > [... the GPL ...] > > > > The GPL talks about legal regime in the GNU Republic in a nearby > > alternative universe where First Sale is nonexistent, IP is not > > property (it belongs to the state), > > "Intellectual property" indeed is not property and belongs to the > state _under_ _current_ _laws_. The originators have _limited_ rights > for exploiting them, limited in extent and time. Copyright and > patents _expire_, not by an act of the state confiscating the said > "intellectual property", but by the state relinquishing his special > protection for time-limited exclusive exploitation, granted in > exchange for the act of publishing, passing the work into the public. You do know that works in public domain are subject to appropriation by anyone, eh? > > > and where distributing software under any "license" other than the > > GPL (which is akin to a lottery or any other permits from the state > > and is of course not a contract or a property right in the GNU > > Republic) or "GPL compatible" license (but that's for extra > > regulation fee) is a felony under GNU law. > > You are babbling. Of course you were babbling above as well, but I > chose to use that as an excuse for showing something people tend not > to realize. Well, the GNU Law is about this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html "RMS: ... the source code might not be available or they might try to use contracts to restrict the users instead. So making software free is not as simple as ending copyright on software: it's amore complex situation than that. In fact, if copyright were simply abolished from software then we would no longer be able to use copyleft to protect the free status of a program but meanwhile the software privateers could use other methods--contracts or withhlding the source to make software proprietary. So what would mean is, if we release a free program some greedy bastard could make a modified version and publish just the binaries and make people sign non-disclosure agreements for them. We would no longer have a way to stop them." regards, alexander. ___ 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 wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going > >> on. > > > > "We" don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand, > > have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff > > and achieving pretty good results already. For example, > > http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-30.pdf> Yes. And? The last time the FSF's didn't get what they wanted (dismissal with prejudice) and they actually got spanked by judge for using "extraneous materials FSF relied upon in drafting the motion". Note that the judge also rejected a number of the arguments of the FSF, including that the nature of the GPL providing free access to software programs, subject to some limitations, necessarily aids competition. And here we go, brave FSF now "incorporates by reference and reasserts all of the arguments made in its briefing in support of its prior motion to dismiss". We'll see much more FSF's blood this time, I think. As for judge's comments about the GPL... one can tie oneself in knots trying to make sense of the GPL. It ignores provisions of the copyright statutes that allow the modification or redistribution of works without permission of the copyright owner. It talks about "derived" works which don't seem to be the same as "derivative works", etc. etc. It's quite easy for a judge to get a bit confused on a first glance. Wallace will gradually straighten him out. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU General Public License?
You can make profit of the GPL licence, see for example redhat. But you should be aware of one thing: using the commoncpp library will probably mean you need to license your software under GPL, so the source code must be provided. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
John Hasler wrote: [...] > No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give > copies of the binaries to. 17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy. 106(3) is severely limited by the "exception" to 106(3) in section 109. The reason why 106(3) is listed in 106 is to provide legal basis to punish not only somebody who pirates works and who may not even try or want to distribute pirated copies, but also somebody who distributes pirated copies to the public that were unlawfully made by another. Now, GNUtians, you tell me how does that apply to the GPL (not-a-contract according to the FSF). Neither RMS nor Moglen can explain it. Perhaps you can. I doubt it. regards, alexander. ___ 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 wrote: [...] > Wallace gets a last chance, but the court has not even found enough > merit in Wallace's ramblings to even start proper proceedings. "By making certain software programs available to users at no charge, the GPL may be discouraging developers from creating new and better programs because they will not receive compensation for their work, thereby reducing the number of quality programs available to users. This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can be inferred from what Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under the rule of reason doctrine." > > > We'll see much more FSF's blood this time, I think. > > Well, we certainly can't see any less. See above. regards, alexander. ___ 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 wrote: [...] > That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going > on. "We" don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand, have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff and achieving pretty good results already. For example, http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf Breaking news. FSF says that the contract controls. Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Reactions: - Re: FSF says that the contract controls by: day5done01/27/06 04:38 pm The lawyers for the FSF must'a been smokin' the good stuff from Merkey's stash. Everyone who is neither blind nor an idiot knows for certain that the GPL is a *LICENSE NOT A CONTRACT* -- Richard Stallman has clarified that fact at least a hundred times. Dollar to a dime Eben Moglen fires the lame asses over at the ICE MILLER law firm real soon. - - Re: FSF says that the contract controls by: day5done >> I'm sure there would be people willing to take you up on that bet if they thought you'd actually pay. << If Moglen doesn't fire them he has some serious explaining to do to thousands of people on why he misled programmers and companies on the legal nature of the GPL -- he is, after all, a Professor of Law and lead counsel for the FSF. "This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license--that is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden. Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits." http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html Since the GPL is now proclaimed a contract, its terms are subject to interpretation under the common law of *fifty* different state jurisdictions -- there is no "federal common law". That fact is a real can of worms in its own right. Most states have their own restraint of trade laws. Linux may face fifty different Wallace's in fifty different states. If Wallace lost in Federal Court he could still sue under Indiana law: IC 24-1-2-1 Illegal combinations; exceptions; offense; defense Sec. 1. Every scheme, contract, or combination in restraint of trade or commerce, ... - Furthermore, - GPL Hollaaring by: walter_oak_night01/27/06 03:04 pm ICE on automatic aggregation of software copyrights In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." Linux kernel v. application And as the copyright notice in the kernel sources says, user applications are not subject to the GPL. Supported by Hollaar: With dynamically-linked libraries, the application program being distributed is no longer a compilation that includes the library. Because the library is not being distributed with the application program, no permission is needed from the copyright owner of the library for the distribution to users. Users must, of course, be authorized to use the library, but if they are owners of a copy of the library, under Section 117 they can make any adaptations of the library necessary to use it with the application program. FSF GPL FAQ I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions would have to obtained those libraries separately. Why doesn't the GPL permit this? . http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MoneyGuzzlerInc FAQ as Fact In 2002, a company named Global Technologies Ltd (now defunct) had ported some 4.5M lines of GPL/BSD and other open source code to Windows using AT&T Uwin. They claimed less than 500 lines had to be changed and all changes went back to original authors. The binaries were distributed from their web site, but one day disappeared. My $50.00 check for a CD distribution of the binaries and source, which indicated $25 gift to FSF, was returned with a letter explaining Moglan threatened legal action for violating the GPL because the code was linked with AT&T uwins proprietary posix.dll that provided the POSIX interface on windows. Hollaar disagress Some have claimed that an application program that needs a library for its operation is a derivative work of that library. They
Re: GNU General Public License?
Fung wrote: [... the GPL ...] The GPL talks about legal regime in the GNU Republic in a nearby alternative universe where First Sale is nonexistent, IP is not property (it belongs to the state), and where distributing software under any "license" other than the GPL (which is akin to a lottery or any other permits from the state and is of course not a contract or a property right in the GNU Republic) or "GPL compatible" license (but that's for extra regulation fee) is a felony under GNU law. > > Assumption: commoncpp library is licensed under GPL Yes. And? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Fung wrote: >> >> I am currently doing some research on open source licences and >> while reading the GPL licence the following question arose: >> Distributing a derivative work combined from software licensed >> under [whatever] > > Combining software doesn't create a derivative work under copyright > law. If anything, it creates a compilation, not a derivative work. Nonsense. "compilation" in copyright law and "compilation" in computing are completely different things. > If you don't happen to live in the GNU Republic, linking of computer > programs (and libraries are computer programs) isn't one of > exclusive rights reserved to copyright owners Quite so. It will be "fair use" most of the time. Redistribution of the results, however, is nothing copyright law permits by default, so you need to consult your license for the terms, if any, you need to fulfill for redistribution of a combined work. So the question of the poster can be resolved without listening to your usual irresponsible hogwash: he can indeed combine a GPLed work in private with whatever software he wants to, as long as he does not redistribute the results. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Wallace gets a last chance, but the court has not even found enough >> merit in Wallace's ramblings to even start proper proceedings. > > "By making certain software programs available to users at no charge, > the GPL may be discouraging developers from creating new and better > programs because they will not receive compensation for their work, > thereby reducing the number of quality programs available to users. > This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can > be inferred from what Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended > Complaint. Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended > Complaint states a claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman > Act, under the rule of reason doctrine." Well, the court is trying to find out a way to interpret Wallace's ramblings within the context of law, since he is unable to do so himself. So they try to construe what he might be talking about legally, and then dismiss this claim without prejudice. Not really an impressive achievement. >> > We'll see much more FSF's blood this time, I think. >> >> Well, we certainly can't see any less. > > See above. I can't see the FSF bleeding just because the court tries to pound some coherence into Wallace's claims before dismissing them. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ 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 wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Fung wrote: > >> > >> I am currently doing some research on open source licences and > >> while reading the GPL licence the following question arose: > >> Distributing a derivative work combined from software licensed > >> under [whatever] > > > > Combining software doesn't create a derivative work under copyright > > law. If anything, it creates a compilation, not a derivative work. > > Nonsense. "compilation" in copyright law and "compilation" in > computing are completely different things. Hey retard, I meant compilation as in copyright law. Once you've got a lawfully made copy of a "computer program" (a set of instructions... see the definition) in source code form, you can reproduce it in object code form (as an additional copy per 17 USC 117) using compilation process (as in computing), link it together with other stuff and run. It has nothing to do with "fair use". Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy (source code see above) to distribute additional copies (in object code form see above) "along with the copy from which such copies were prepared". regards, alexander. ___ 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
Let's assume, that GPL 3 is finalized as is today, and that at that time the country I live in - Switzerland - still does not allow patents on software. Software patents are still illegal in the majority of European countries. I write some software on my own, and because I live in Switzerland I do not care about if what I write is infringing any patents in some other countries. I decide to not keep the software for myself but rather make it available to others by publishing it. Q1: Can I use GPL 3 or would that force me to verify my software is encumbered by patents to not violate myself the terms of the GPL 3, or be forced to license the patent I would infringe outside of the place I live? I don't think this is related to the GPLv3, or any copyright license actually. If you violate a software patent, then you violate it. A copyright license cannot give anyone the right to simple violate patent laws, or any laws. What a license can do, which the GPLv3 tries to achive, is if a patent holder uses, modifies, or distributes the program then they cannot sue you for patent infrigment. Q2: If answer to Q1 ist that I cannot use "vanilla" GPL 3, am I allowed to add a clause through which I transfer the obligation to check for patent infrigements and to apply for a patent licence to the user of my software? That would make the software non-free, since one requires an special license that allows only a specific subset of people to use the software. Q3: If answer to Q2 ist, that I cannot transfer the obligation to check for patents to the user, can I simply license the software under GPL 3 with the added clause, that someone may use the software only in places which do not know about software patents? This would also make the software non-free. The ability to use it for any purpose, anywhere in the world, is a right that all users must have. Q4: Am I allowed to do such modifications and redistribute the software, or am I forced by the provisions of GPL 3 to either make sure my modification does not infringe someones patents or license myself the patent? This isn't something related to the GPLv3, it is related to how patent law works. So it is your task to check that you are not violating any patents, and you cannot put the burden on someone else. This is one of the major problem with software patents, it is impossible to check that you are violating single or several patents, they are written in a very vauge language. Q5: If the answer to Q4 is that I am not allowed to do such modficiations, but answer to Q2 says that I can transfer the obligtion to check for patent infringements and licence the patent to the user, am I then allowed to add such a clause to the licence of my modified software even though the software I used as base did not have such a clause? Once again, this would make the software non-free. The user should not have any obiligation to check anything. Q6: If the answer to Q4 is that I am not allowed to do such modficiations, but answers to Q3 says that I can limit the places where the software can be used, am I then allowed to add such a clause to the license of my modified software even though the software I used as base did not have such a clause? Yet again, this would make the software non-free, the right to use, modify, distribute and study software is a right that _all_ users _must_ have. I appreciate any answers to my questions. Hopefully my answers will be of help. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
For the sake of nailing stupid dak once again... David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > John Hasler wrote: > > [...] > >> No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give > >> copies of the binaries to. > > > > 17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED, > > WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise > > dispose of the possession of that copy. > > "lawfully made", "dispose of", "possession". It is clear that this > applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with > the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself. ["the > license"] HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476 (about 109): "any resale of an illegally ''pirated'' phonorecord would be an infringement, but the disposition of a phonorecord legally made under the compulsory licensing provisions of section 115 would not." DMCA Section 104 Report: (ignoring Red Hat's "concerns" orticulated by Red Hat attorneys during testimony***) http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf "There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109." ***) < quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf > Red Hat, Inc.: Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109. The primary difference between digital and nondigital products with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded from the Internet without the printed documentation, without the box, and without the installation service. Many open source and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft. ... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would jeopardize the ability of open source and free software licensor to require [blah blah] Time Warner, Inc.: We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium. Library Associations: First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose" and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion because of changing habits due to new inventions and discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property throughout society. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU General Public License?
art 3 of the GPL licence: You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 ... art 4 of the GPL licence. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. Assumption: commoncpp library is licensed under 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
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going >> on. > > "We" don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand, > have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff > and achieving pretty good results already. For example, http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-30.pdf> -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John Hasler wrote: > [...] >> No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give >> copies of the binaries to. > > 17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED, > WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise > dispose of the possession of that copy. "lawfully made", "dispose of", "possession". It is clear that this applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself. For those copies, your rights are restricted by the license. The GPL allows you distributing such copies _under_ _the_ _GPL_, _including_ the source code (or rights to it). Copyright law does not permit you to do any distribution of them without license. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> "lawfully made", "dispose of", "possession". It is clear that this > >> applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with > >> the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself. For > >> those copies, your rights are restricted by the license. The GPL > >> allows you distributing such copies _under_ _the_ _GPL_, _including_ > >> the source code (or rights to it). Copyright law does not permit you > >> to do any distribution of them without license. > > > > Hey dak, Lee Hollaar the author of > > http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html (I mean his > > treatise, not the Foreword written by the Chief Judge and the Chief > > Intellectual Property Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee) > > told you several times in the past that your understanding of > > "first sale" is totally wrong. Here's what Lee Hollar who worked > > with the Chief Judge and the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel to > > the Senate Judiciary Committee on Internet, copyright, and patent > > issues as a Committee Fellow had to say about the GNU legal nonsense > > version 3 (note that most of it applies to GNU legal nonsense > > version 2 as well). > > You are a practical joker. Do you even _read_ what you cite? Hollaar > is here talking about the right to modify, not the right to copy. And > certainly not about "first sale". You're a real idiot. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/4d2438aa5d80f803 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain >within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, >but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the >license permits." [quoting Eben Moglen] That might be true IF "she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits." But as I have pointed out here and in my comments to the FSF regarding the new GPLv3, that is not the case. United States copyright law provides a number of exceptions to the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, including "first sale" as covered in 17 U.S.C. 109 and the right in 17 U.S.C. 117 of the owner of a copy of a computer to reproduce or adapt it if necessary to use it. The convenient redefinition of things in the GPL reminds me of a quote from Abraham Lincoln: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU General Public License?
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html The funny thing is that the guy pretends to be a sort of anarchist. In in interview with Spiegel Online Stallman said "I tend toward the left-wing anarchist idea", and to LinuxWorld Today he said I am a sort of combination between a liberal and a leftist anarchist." Now, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/12/283113.html (The Free Software Movement - Anarchism in Action) - Crossover There are currently some points of contact between the free software movement and the anarchist movement, as well as the wider anti-capitalist movement. One example is the ActiviX group, who arrange training days to help activists learn how to use GNU/Linux. There are also an emerging culture of 'HackLabs' in several European countries, open computer access in political spaces. One is currently being set up in Freedom Press book shop in London. Such work should continue and increase and the connections need to be drawn more. Anarchist theorists would do well to seriously consider the implications of the movement for anarchism as a social and industrial theory. For too long anarchist theorists have had to point to past examples of more libertarian ways of creating and maintaining complex systems. With the advent of GNU/Linux, we no longer need to rely on the past alone. Caution should be used in such analysis. As noted above, the free software movement is not totally anarchist, nor even fully libertarian. The facts and their implications should be studied with humility, seeking for learn more than we seek to teach. Also, we should not be overly concerned with interest shown in the "open source" movement by Troyskyist and other left groups. Small groups of free software programming groups jealously guard their independence by instinct. - Our favorite web sites use free software It is also worth remembering that anarchists and activists in general use plenty of free software already (though we could stand to use it on the desktop more). If you are reading this article on enrager.net you are using free software as you browse, even if you used a Windows or Apple machine to access the site. You are using GNU/Linux and other free software every time you use the following web sites (only a few among thousands): Indymedia UK and international, Infoshop, flag.blackened.net, AK Press UK. Many of the community based online software systems, forums and open content packages for web sites are free software, including the Indymedia code bases. - Engels' "steering a ship" argument In his campaign against anti-authoritarian ideas within the First International, Engels asked in a letter written in January 1872 "how do these people [the anarchists] propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without a single management?" (15) Anarchists know full well that the way in which co-ordinated work takes place -authoritarian hierarchy or by freely co-operating groups electing recallable delegates where needed- makes all the difference. Now we have in GNU/Linux and the rest of free software movement many compelling examples of complex systems that have no leader, no central government or management (Linus may be the 'dictator' of the Linux kernel, but attempts no domination of other projects, even if that were feasible, which it is not). - The contradictory role of big business Big businesses with a vested interest in GNU/Linux like Sun, HP and IBM often employ their programmers to adapt it to add a new feature which will make it more usable with one of their hardware products. The nature of the GPL, however, means that these modifications and additions must be shared with the community. Why would large corporations give stuff away for free? It should be remembered that these are generally companies who make their money from hardware, not software. Software is regarded as an expense. Being able to draw on the resources of the community is a big plus for them, and this is something that the Open Source movement has often argued to get them on board. This accounts for the corporate embrace of GNU/Linux and "open source" in recent years. Apple's OS X uses as its core the BSD UNIX operating system. However, because BSD uses a more permissive non-copyleft free software license, the freeness of BSD did not 'infect' OS X and it remains non-free. The core of the OS (without the nice graphical Mac interface) is maintained separately as the free 'Darwin'. This is a good example of why copyleft should be used to protect common property. * The Future So anarchists should realise that although free software pushes the boundaries of freedom, ultimately, it works within capitalism and could never 'infect' the whole system. It does nothing about more general wealth-sharing, decision making in other industries (or even many in its own), or wider social relations. Although the concept of cop
GPL and other licences
Dear folks, I am currently doing some research on open source licences and while reading the GPL licence the following question arose: Distributing a derivative work combined from software licensed under the Apache Software Licence 2.0 and software licensed under the GNU GPL 2.0 is not possible, due to the patent terminating clause in the Apache Software Licence. But is it forbidden to create a derivative work from software licensed under those two licences, without distributing? So only using it for personal/internal use. In the GPL licence I can only find provisions on distribution of the original form or modified/covered form. Or is this restricted by copryright law? Yours, Fung ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
To clarify it a bit: providing source code is not the question here. I just want to know if it is legal to use the differently licensed software in such manner, namely: personal/internal use eventhough the licences exclude eachother ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going >> >> on. >> > >> > "We" don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand, >> > have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff >> > and achieving pretty good results already. For example, >> >> http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-30.pdf> > > Yes. And? The last time the FSF's didn't get what they wanted > (dismissal with prejudice) and they actually got spanked by judge > for using "extraneous materials FSF relied upon in drafting the > motion". Uh, the case has been dismissed. Without prejudice, meaning that Wallace gets a last chance, but the court has not even found enough merit in Wallace's ramblings to even start proper proceedings. > We'll see much more FSF's blood this time, I think. Well, we certainly can't see any less. > As for judge's comments about the GPL... one can tie oneself in > knots trying to make sense of the GPL. Well, so far you are tieing yourself in knows trying to pass it off as nonsense. > It's quite easy for a judge to get a bit confused on a first > glance. Wallace will gradually straighten him out. Certainly so, since Wallace has had a profound legal education like yourself, in contrast to the judge who is confused about legal matters. Too bad that in the courts judges rule, and not Wallaces and Terekhovs. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Fung wrote: >> >> >> >> I am currently doing some research on open source licences and >> >> while reading the GPL licence the following question arose: >> >> Distributing a derivative work combined from software licensed >> >> under [whatever] >> > >> > Combining software doesn't create a derivative work under copyright >> > law. If anything, it creates a compilation, not a derivative work. >> >> Nonsense. "compilation" in copyright law and "compilation" in >> computing are completely different things. > > Hey retard, I meant compilation as in copyright law. Once you've > got a lawfully made copy of a "computer program" (a set of > instructions... see the definition) in source code form, you can > reproduce it in object code form (as an additional copy per 17 USC > 117) using compilation process (as in computing), link it together > with other stuff and run. It has nothing to do with "fair use". > > Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy > (source code see above) to distribute additional copies (in object > code form see above) "along with the copy from which such copies > were prepared". That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going on. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> "lawfully made", "dispose of", "possession". It is clear that this
> applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with
> the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself. For
> those copies, your rights are restricted by the license. The GPL
> allows you distributing such copies _under_ _the_ _GPL_, _including_
> the source code (or rights to it). Copyright law does not permit you
> to do any distribution of them without license.
Hey dak, Lee Hollaar the author of
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html (I mean his
treatise, not the Foreword written by the Chief Judge and the Chief
Intellectual Property Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee)
told you several times in the past that your understanding of
"first sale" is totally wrong. Here's what Lee Hollar who worked
with the Chief Judge and the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel to
the Senate Judiciary Committee on Internet, copyright, and patent
issues as a Committee Fellow had to say about the GNU legal nonsense
version 3 (note that most of it applies to GNU legal nonsense
version 2 as well).
comment 388: Not a correct statement of copyright law
Regarding the text: However, nothing else grants you permission to
propagate or modify the Program or any covered works.
In section: gpl3.notacontract.p0.s3
Submitted by: hollaar
comments:
This is not a correct statement of copyright law, at least in the
United States. With respect to "propagate", it is likely a tautology
because of the defintion of "propagate" covering only things "that
require permission under applicable copyright law". But for "modify",
17 U.S.C. 117 permits the "owner of a copy of a computer program" to
make an "adaptation" in particular circumstances, and makes it clear
that making that adaptation does not "infringe copyright if you do not
accept this License." It also does not seem to recognize the "first
sale" doctrine codified in 17 U.S.C. 109, that permits the transfer of
a lawfully-made copy "without the authority of the copyright owner".
Perhaps the interplay between the definition of "propagate" and this
section covers it, but it is certainly not made clear and, in fact,
misleads one in thinking that the only way to redistribute a lawful
copy is to accept the License.
noted by hollaar
comment 389: Not a correct statement
Regarding the text: You may not propagate, modify or sublicense the
Program except as expressly provided under this License.
In section: gpl3.termination.p0.s1
Submitted by: hollaar
comments:
As I noted in more detail in my comments on Paragraph 9, this is not
an accurate statement. In the United States, 17 U.S.C. 109 ("first
sale") and 117 ("computer programs") allow the owner of a
lawfully-made copy to modify it in certain circumstances and to
redistribute it without permission of the copyright owner.
noted by hollaar
comment 390: Permission may not be required for use
Regarding the text: which means permission for use
In section: gpl3.licensecompat.p6.s1
Submitted by: hollaar
comments:
In the United States, at least, permission may not be required to use
a computer program if the user is the lawful owner of a copy. See 17
U.S.C. 117. United States copyright law does not give the copyright
owner a right to control use (although the DMCA does provide sort of
an access right if the information is protected by DRM, see 17 U.S.C.
1201(a), which does not apply here because of the anti-DRM language).
Even if you regard the "use" of the computer program as a
"reproduction" because it is being copied into memory (see MAI v.
Peak, http://digital-law-online.info/cases/26PQ2D1458.htm), that
reproduction is specifically allowed by 17 U.S.C. 117 for the lawful
owner of the copy of the computer program.
noted by hollaar
comment 570: Just saying it doesn't make it so
Regarding the text: No covered work constitutes part of an effective
technological protection measure
In section: gpl3.drm.p1.s1
Submitted by: hollaar
comments:
A covered work will be "part of an effective technological protection
measure" (a term that mimics the DMCA "technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work", much like "derived from"
mimics "derivative work") based on what it does, not what you say. For
example, you can't exempt yourself from patent law by simply stating
that the "covered work is not a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter" (the classes of patentable things in the United
States).
noted by hollaar
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU General Public License?
Fung wrote: > > You can make profit of the GPL licence, see for example redhat. But you > should be aware of one thing: using the commoncpp library will probably > mean you need to license your software under GPL, so the source code > must be provided. Sez who? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] > > You're a brainwashed GNUtian. Of course it doesn't make sense to you. > > Geez, I guess I must be... I don't remember the brainwashing sessions, Of course you don't remember. > so there's your proof :) A whole bunch of proofs can be found in the archives of this newsgroup on google. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
Rex writes: > Do you mean this? Who is "you"? Are you replying to someone in particular? Hint: this is Usenet, not a "forum". > In other words, it wouldn't be OK to modify Emacs and allow people full > remote use of it on my server without giving out the source, but it would > be OK to modify MySQL so people can do simple searchbox queries through > HTTP that query my customized database. Does that sound right? No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give copies of the binaries to. Allowing someone to run the software remotely does not involve giving them copies of anything. Therefor you do not need to supply copies of the Emacs source to people who run it remotely on your server. The same applies to MySQL or any other GPL software. Read the license. If you can't understand it consult an attorney. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping website), you don't have to GPL your modifications. Can anyone point me to an official statement on this by the FSF or another authority? The GUN General Public License has the offical "statement" about this. Notable section 3 of GPLv2. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
