Re: GPL Question

[Alexander Terekhov]

rjack wrote:

[... Affero GPL ...]

> If you're into the "copyleft" thing ask the people at the Free Sofware
> Foundation  http://www.fsf.org/licensing/  -- it'll be legal gibberish

It would be real fun to watch FSF/SFLC "enforcing" GNU Affero*** given

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf

***) http://www.fsf.org/agplv3-pr

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify 
  ^

the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users
interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your 
version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the 
Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the 
Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through 
some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of 
software.  This Corresponding Source shall include the 
Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU 
General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the 
following paragraph."

regards,
alexander.

--
"Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market 
value is impossible to assess"

 -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[Miles Bader]

Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ummm, anyone want to address my question?

You only posted it about 10 hours ago even if somebody is interested
in the issue, you still have to give them time to read it.

-Miles

-- 
The key to happiness
 is having dreams.  [from a fortune cookie]
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[rjack]

Noah Slater wrote:

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 06:17:03PM +, Ryan wrote:

Ummm, anyone want to address my question?


From what I can tell, this list was set up specifically as a honey pot
for trollers.
 
If you want real help I would recommend joing #gnu on freenode.net.





From what I can tell, this list was set up specifically as a honey pot
for trollers.


The posts to this list are easily screened using a killfilter. These 
newsreader killfilters screen mask posts from "trolls". Some trolls 
quickly learn what buttons to push in order to induce anguished 
emotional responses (troll food). If you really want a troll-free World, 
roll up your keyboard and go buy a dog -- or in the alternative use a 
client killfilter.


Respectfully,
rjack

--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101- 1332,
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the
relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v.
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit 2006) ---



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[rjack]

Ryan wrote:

Ummm, anyone want to address my question?

On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 07:39 +, Ryan wrote:

I'm not sure this is the place to be asking this, so please redirect me
if necessary.

I'm working on a payment-routing server (http://ripple.sf.net/), and I'd
like to release it under a license that obliges those who build services
on it to also release the source for those services.  Applications built
on top of would essentially be accounting systems that interact with the
server over a socket (likely using HTTP), but that interaction is quite
complex, requiring several different types of callbacks to the
accounting system.  


Would the Affero GPL work for me?  Would an application on top of my
server be considered a "single system" with that server for the purposes
of the GPL?  


What if there was, or could theoretically be, another server like mine
that uses the same API, so the application could plug in a different
server?  Is this important, or is the fact that someone *is* using my
server tightly integrated with their application the relevant fact?

A similar example to consider might be if I was releasing a database
server under the AGPL.  If someone used it in their web app, would they
be obliged to release their app source under the [A]GPL as well?  Would
it matter if my db server or its interface was generic or
unique/specialized?

Thanks,
Ryan






Ummm, anyone want to address my question?


Your question does not concern computer programming. Your question is a 
legal question. The number of sovereigns in the World is approaching 200 
-- each with its own idea of intellectual property laws and regulations.
Many countries pay lip service to the Berne Convention and then 
jealously guard their own interpretation of licensing law. The short 
answer to your question is there exits no satisfactory "international" 
answer to a licensing question such as yours.


If you're into the "copyleft" thing ask the people at the Free Sofware 
Foundation  http://www.fsf.org/licensing/  -- it'll be legal gibberish 
-- but feel free to ask them anyway.


Regards,
rjack

--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101- 1332,
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the
relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v.
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit 2006) ---








___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Ummm, anyone want to address my question?

Those with patience get answers faster; those who read already have
the answer.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[Noah Slater]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 06:17:03PM +, Ryan wrote:
> Ummm, anyone want to address my question?

>From what I can tell, this list was set up specifically as a honey pot
for trollers.

If you want real help I would recommend joing #gnu on freenode.net.

-- 
Noah Slater 

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[Ryan]

Ummm, anyone want to address my question?

On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 07:39 +, Ryan wrote:
> I'm not sure this is the place to be asking this, so please redirect me
> if necessary.
> 
> I'm working on a payment-routing server (http://ripple.sf.net/), and I'd
> like to release it under a license that obliges those who build services
> on it to also release the source for those services.  Applications built
> on top of would essentially be accounting systems that interact with the
> server over a socket (likely using HTTP), but that interaction is quite
> complex, requiring several different types of callbacks to the
> accounting system.  
> 
> Would the Affero GPL work for me?  Would an application on top of my
> server be considered a "single system" with that server for the purposes
> of the GPL?  
> 
> What if there was, or could theoretically be, another server like mine
> that uses the same API, so the application could plug in a different
> server?  Is this important, or is the fact that someone *is* using my
> server tightly integrated with their application the relevant fact?
> 
> A similar example to consider might be if I was releasing a database
> server under the AGPL.  If someone used it in their web app, would they
> be obliged to release their app source under the [A]GPL as well?  Would
> it matter if my db server or its interface was generic or
> unique/specialized?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ryan
> 

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Noah Slater wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 01:24:08PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> > Windows' security track record does not exactly convince one of closed
> > source's inherent superiority in this regard.
> 
>  \|||/
>  (o o)
> ,ooO--(_)---.
> | Please|
> |   don't feed the  |
> | TROLL's ! |
> '--Ooo--'
> |__|__|
>  || ||
> ooO Ooo


Troll's response:

  _ _
 |_|   |_|
 | | /^^^\ | |
_| |_  (| "o" |)  _| |_
  _| | | | _(_---_)_ | | | |_
 | | | | |' |_| |_| `| | | | |
 |  |   / \   |  |
  \/  / /(. .)\ \  \/
\/  / /  | . |  \ \  \/
  \  \/ /||Y||\ \/  /
   \__/  || ||  \__/
 () ()
 || ||
ooO Ooo

regards,
alexander.

--
"Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market 
value is impossible to assess"

 -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[rjack]

Noah Slater wrote:

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 01:24:08PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:

Windows' security track record does not exactly convince one of closed
source's inherent superiority in this regard.


 \|||/   
 (o o)   
,ooO--(_)---.

| Please|
|   don't feed the  |
| TROLL's ! |
'--Ooo--'
|__|__|  
 || ||   
ooO Ooo  



Ah.
Another tender GNUtian to feast on!

Regards,
rjack

--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332, 
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal 
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the 
relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. 
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F3d 749, (Seventh Cir. 2006) ---


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[rjack]

Noah Slater wrote:

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:10:57AM -0500, rjack wrote:

Sounds like a wonderful idea. Keeping the source code and protocols open
for all to examine will be the perfect challenge to every malicious 
hacker on the planet to see who can disrupt your co-operative financial 
accounting system in 0.001 seconds or less.


TROLL TROLL TROLL... do you ever give up?



Just a' trollin' along
Singin' a' song
Day by day.

Sincerely,
rjack

--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332, 
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal 
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the 
relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. 
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F3d 749, (Seventh Cir. 2006) ---

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:

rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


Sounds like a wonderful idea. Keeping the source code and protocols
open for all to examine will be the perfect challenge to every
malicious hacker on the planet to see who can disrupt your
co-operative financial accounting system in 0.001 seconds or less.


Windows' security track record does not exactly convince one of closed
source's inherent superiority in this regard.



It doesn't matter what kind of programming model is being used on a 
network that is open to a few hundred million computers. Attempting to 
run a network of financial servers and clients on an open internet is folly.


Regards,
rjack

--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332, 
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal 
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the 
relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. 
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F3d 749, (Seventh Cir. 2006) ---

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[Noah Slater]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 01:24:08PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Windows' security track record does not exactly convince one of closed
> source's inherent superiority in this regard.

 \|||/   
 (o o)   
,ooO--(_)---.
| Please|
|   don't feed the  |
| TROLL's ! |
'--Ooo--'
|__|__|  
 || ||   
ooO Ooo  

-- 
Noah Slater 

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[Noah Slater]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:10:57AM -0500, rjack wrote:
> Sounds like a wonderful idea. Keeping the source code and protocols open
> for all to examine will be the perfect challenge to every malicious 
> hacker on the planet to see who can disrupt your co-operative financial 
> accounting system in 0.001 seconds or less.

TROLL TROLL TROLL... do you ever give up?

-- 
Noah Slater 

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL Question

[David Kastrup]

rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Sounds like a wonderful idea. Keeping the source code and protocols
> open for all to examine will be the perfect challenge to every
> malicious hacker on the planet to see who can disrupt your
> co-operative financial accounting system in 0.001 seconds or less.

Windows' security track record does not exactly convince one of closed
source's inherent superiority in this regard.

-- 
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 Question

[rjack]

Ryan wrote:

I'm not sure this is the place to be asking this, so please redirect me
if necessary.

I'm working on a payment-routing server (http://ripple.sf.net/), and I'd
like to release it under a license that obliges those who build services
on it to also release the source for those services.  Applications built
on top of would essentially be accounting systems that interact with the
server over a socket (likely using HTTP), but that interaction is quite
complex, requiring several different types of callbacks to the
accounting system.  


Would the Affero GPL work for me?  Would an application on top of my
server be considered a "single system" with that server for the purposes
of the GPL?  


What if there was, or could theoretically be, another server like mine
that uses the same API, so the application could plug in a different
server?  Is this important, or is the fact that someone *is* using my
server tightly integrated with their application the relevant fact?

A similar example to consider might be if I was releasing a database
server under the AGPL.  If someone used it in their web app, would they
be obliged to release their app source under the [A]GPL as well?  Would
it matter if my db server or its interface was generic or
unique/specialized?

Thanks,
Ryan



Sounds like a wonderful idea. Keeping the source code and protocols open
for all to examine will be the perfect challenge to every malicious 
hacker on the planet to see who can disrupt your co-operative financial 
accounting system in 0.001 seconds or less.


Sincerely,
rjack

--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332, 
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal 
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the 
relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. 
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F3d 749, (Seventh Cir. 2006) ---



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[John Hasler]

mike3 writes:
> OK. I'm curious, though, you mentioned the version 2. Is the version 3
> more complicated, then?

I wrote:
> By orders of magnitude.  Do you know patent law?

mike3 writes:
> So then how the heck can one ever hope to understand or use it?

A good question.  I certainly do not intend to use it (not that anyone will
care).
-- 
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 question

[mike3]

On Oct 17, 1:42 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mike3 writes:
> > OK. I'm curious, though, you mentioned the version 2. Is the version 3
> > more complicated, then?
>
> By orders of magnitude.  Do you know patent law?

So then how the heck can one ever hope to understand
or use it?

> --
> 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 question

[Richard Tobin]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And to reiterate, Miles does not represent or speak for GNU.  So he
>cannot state who does or does not represent the GNU project.

Anyone can state facts.  Who you find more reliable depends on lots
of factors.

-- Richard
-- 
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[danw6144]

On Oct 24, 5:47 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Why don't you get a Shared Source license and test your theories and
> then mail Stevie Balmer?

Betcha' my dog can whup your dog.



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >Alfred does not represent or speak for "GNU".
   >
   > Since you don't either represent or speak for "GNU", you really
   > can't state that now can you?

   Sure I can.

   Anyway, to reiterate:  Alfred does not represent or speak for GNU.

And to reiterate, Miles does not represent or speak for GNU.  So he
cannot state who does or does not represent the GNU project.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:44:05PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
> > > > there is no "library with compatible interface") creating "acting as
> > > > your agent" liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized
> > > > GNUtians take it seriously, don't you? Just curious.
> > >
> > > Hey Alex,
> > >
> > > Why don't you get a Shared Source license and test your theories and
> > > then mail Stevie Balmer?
> >
> > What exactly do you want me to test and then mail Stevie Balmer,
> > dear mini-RMS?
> 
> Your theories. Go sell copies of Windows that you make.

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensing/windows.mspx

Quick inspection revealed that Windows shared source licenses do not
grant rights of reproduction and/or adaptation of Windows (apart from 
17 USC 117 defaults, that is).

You can't compare it to GPL (or Ms-PL/RL for this matter) with its 
broad scope of granted rights (all rights are granted).

Now please mail this message to Stevie Balmer yourself, mini-RMS.

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

 -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:44:05PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
> > > there is no "library with compatible interface") creating "acting as
> > > your agent" liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized
> > > GNUtians take it seriously, don't you? Just curious.
> > 
> > Hey Alex,
> > 
> > Why don't you get a Shared Source license and test your theories and
> > then mail Stevie Balmer?
> 
> What exactly do you want me to test and then mail Stevie Balmer, 
> dear mini-RMS?

Your theories. Go sell copies of Windows that you make.

Rui

-- 
Grudnuk demand sustenance!
Today is Boomtime, the 5th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173
Celebrate Maladay
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
> > there is no "library with compatible interface") creating "acting as
> > your agent" liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized
> > GNUtians take it seriously, don't you? Just curious.
> 
> Hey Alex,
> 
> Why don't you get a Shared Source license and test your theories and
> then mail Stevie Balmer?

What exactly do you want me to test and then mail Stevie Balmer, 
dear mini-RMS?

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

 -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> FYI:
> 
> 10/18/2007 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. served on
> 9/24/2007, answer due 10/22/2007. Service was accepted by Loretta Alger,
> Account Manager. Document filed by Erik Andersen; Rob Landley.
> (Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
> 
> 10/19/2007 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER that
> Defendant Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. has until November 5, 2007 to answer
> the Complaint filed on Sept. 19, 2007 by Plaintiff Erik Andersen and Rob
> Landley. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. answer due 11/5/2007. SO ORDERED.
> (Signed by Judge Peter K. Leisure on 10/17/2007) (jmi) (Entered:
> 10/19/2007)

Number five just showed up in the docket:

5 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Loretta A. Preska. Judge John E.
Sprizzo is no longer assigned to the case. (laq) (Entered: 10/23/2007) 

--
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Office of the Clerk
U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. 10007-1213
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

Anderson
  V. 07cv8205
Monsoon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

Pursuant to the memorandum of the Case Processing Assistant, the
above-entitled action is reassigned to the calendar of

Judge Preska

All future documents submitted in this action are to be presented in the
Clerk’s Office of the Southern District Court for filing and shall bear
the assigned judge’s initials after the case number.

The attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) are requested to serve a copy of
the Notice of Reassignment on all defendants.

J. Michael McMahon, CLERK
Dated: 10/17/7
By: Lourdes Aquino
Deputy Clerk
cc: Attorneys of Record

PS REASSIGNMENT FORM
Data Quality Control Revised: March 9, 2001

Case 1:07-cv-08205-LAP Document 5 Filed 10/17/2007 Page 1 of 1
--

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

 -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when 
> there is no "library with compatible interface") creating "acting as 
> your agent" liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized 
> GNUtians take it seriously, don't you? Just curious.

Hey Alex,

Why don't you get a Shared Source license and test your theories and
then mail Stevie Balmer?

Rui

-- 
Or is it?
Today is Boomtime, the 5th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173
Celebrate Maladay
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> > On Oct 19, 9:47 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> The binary is also combined into one big blob when run,
> >
> > But not even by me. The user chooses to combine it. I don't. For all
> > I care, the user may choose to combine it with some other library,
> > which he may even write himself, with a compatible interface.
> 
> If there is a library with compatible interface, you might be right.
> If there isn't, and if the only reasonable way in which the user can
> sensibly make any use of your code is to link with a particular
> library, the the user is acting as your agent when assembling the
> product, and you can't excuse yourself from responsibility.
> 
> In a similar vein, you can't evade weapon laws by removing an
> essential, but standard part from guns and include instructions
> "please don't insert an M5x18mm screw into that and that place, or you
> might be liable of having assembled a fully functioning weapon".
> 
> Or "don't fill in one pound of powdered sugar here and stir, or this
> will be an illegal exploding device".

ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when 
there is no "library with compatible interface") creating "acting as 
your agent" liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized 
GNUtians take it seriously, don't you? Just curious.

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

 -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Miles Bader]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Alfred does not represent or speak for "GNU".
>
> Since you don't either represent or speak for "GNU", you really can't
> state that now can you?

Sure I can.

Anyway, to reiterate:  Alfred does not represent or speak for GNU.

-Miles

-- 
Run away!  Run away!
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[John Hasler]

David Kastrup writes:
> If there is a library with compatible interface, you might be right.  If
> there isn't, and if the only reasonable way in which the user can
> sensibly make any use of your code is to link with a particular library,
> the the user is acting as your agent when assembling the product, and you
> can't excuse yourself from responsibility.

Under US law you cannot have contributory infringement without primary
infringement to contribute to.  You must show that the user does not have
the right to do that linking (and I don't see how he can be my agent: he
owns all the property involved free and clear and has no obligation do as I
tell him.)

> In a similar vein, you can't evade weapon laws by removing an essential,
> but standard part from guns and include instructions "please don't insert
> an M5x18mm screw into that and that place, or you might be liable of
> having assembled a fully functioning weapon".

If you distribute those kits only to people who have the requisite permits
you will not be liable as a accessory to violation of the weapons laws as
there will be no violation.
-- 
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 question

[David Kastrup]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> On Oct 19, 9:47 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The binary is also combined into one big blob when run,
>
> But not even by me. The user chooses to combine it. I don't. For all
> I care, the user may choose to combine it with some other library,
> which he may even write himself, with a compatible interface.

If there is a library with compatible interface, you might be right.
If there isn't, and if the only reasonable way in which the user can
sensibly make any use of your code is to link with a particular
library, the the user is acting as your agent when assembling the
product, and you can't excuse yourself from responsibility.

In a similar vein, you can't evade weapon laws by removing an
essential, but standard part from guns and include instructions
"please don't insert an M5x18mm screw into that and that place, or you
might be liable of having assembled a fully functioning weapon".

Or "don't fill in one pound of powdered sugar here and stir, or this
will be an illegal exploding device".

-- 
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 question

[Alexander Terekhov]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> 
>>>I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense"
>>>opinion:
>>>
>>> Which sadly, is not much common sense.
>>
>> I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
> 
>Alfred does not represent or speak for "GNU".
> 
> Since you don't either represent or speak for "GNU", you really can't
> state that now can you?

Relax, Alfred. Ignore all those Bader-like under uber GNUtians like you. 

n.torrey.pines in me (so to speak): but dear Alfred, can you please 
reply to your GNUtian mailing list ONLY, *not including individual 
newsgroup subscribers*. This entire newsgroup *IS* subscribed to your 
GNUtian mailing list. Save energy/reduce global warming, please.

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

 -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >>I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense"
   >>opinion:
   >>
   >> Which sadly, is not much common sense.
   >
   > I see GNU likes civilized discourse.

   Alfred does not represent or speak for "GNU".

Since you don't either represent or speak for "GNU", you really can't
state that now can you?

Snide remarks aside, as a GNU developer and maintainer one does indeed
represent and speak for the GNU project.  We are after all the faces
out for the packages that we hack on, the mailinglists we read and
reply to.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
   >but only its interface in your product. The users of your product
   >may or may not opt to use it with the library in question.
   >
   > You are including code as well, macros for example.

   If they are part of the interface (e.g. some convenience macros), [...]

A macro is code, which gets expanded into the program, that code which
was licensed under say the GPL is now part of the compiled program,
that compiled program must be licensed under the GPL if it is going to
be distributed.  Nothing to do with convience or interfaces, but
everything to do with derivative work and how code becomes part of the program.

   > The binary is also combined into one big blob when run,

   But not even by me. The user chooses to combine it. I don't. For all I
   care, the user may choose to combine it with some other library, which
   he may even write himself, with a compatible interface.

A compiled work still contains code, and that is all that matters.
The compiler will expand macros, it will inline parts of the code, etc
etc etc.  Interfaces cannot be copyrighted to begin with.

   P.S. Please reply to newsgroup.

gnu-misc-discuss is actually a mailing list.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

FYI:

10/18/2007 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. served on
9/24/2007, answer due 10/22/2007. Service was accepted by Loretta Alger,
Account Manager. Document filed by Erik Andersen; Rob Landley.
(Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 10/18/2007) 

10/19/2007 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER that
Defendant Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. has until November 5, 2007 to answer
the Complaint filed on Sept. 19, 2007 by Plaintiff Erik Andersen and Rob
Landley. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. answer due 11/5/2007. SO ORDERED.
(Signed by Judge Peter K. Leisure on 10/17/2007) (jmi) (Entered:
10/19/2007) 

rjack wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > rjack wrote:
> >> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> > I hope than Monsoon folks will take an opportunity to trash Moglen's
> > nonsensical GNU legal theory myths in federal court.
> 
> The GPL myth gives rise to another problem.
> 
> That problem is "legal standing". A license such as the GPL
> contains terms that direct "designated third party
> beneficiaries". The GPL's term 2(b) demands:
> 
> b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that
> in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or
> any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all
> third parties under the terms of this License.
> 
> Any consideration flowing from the GPL is assigned to "all third
> parties". This consideration is certainly sufficient under
> contract law to form a valid contract:
> 
> “In addition, under contract law, a contract is supported by
> consideration even if the consideration flows solely to a third
> party. See Mencher v. Weiss, 114 N.E.2d at 181(“[I]t is
> fundamental that a benefit flowing to a third person or legal
> entity constitutes a sufficient consideration for the promise of
> another.”); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 71, cmt. e (1981)
> (“It matters not from whom the consideration moves or to whom it
> goes. If it is bargained for and given in exchange for the
> promise, the promise is not gratuitous.”); see generally 3
> WILLISTON § 7:5, at 60 (“It is well settled that a detriment
> suffered by the promisee at the promisor’s request and as the
> price for the promise is sufficient, despite the fact that the
> promisor is not benefited as well.”); In re: Asia Global
> Crossing, Ltd., et al. 322 B.R. 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., March 21,
> 2005).
> 
> There is a fundamental principle underlying all actions in
> federal courts:
> 
> “Standing doctrine delimits federal jurisdiction to, among other
> things, cases involving real injuries to plaintiffs, the
> so-called "injury-in-fact" requirement.”; Brooklyn Legal Services
> Corp. v. Legal Services Corp., 462 F.3d 219 (Second Cir. 2006).
> 
> Although the copyright owners filed the action in federal court
> in the Monsoon case they have suffered no "injury in fact" from
> the claimed breach of the GPL -- which is stated in the complaint
> as failure to provide access to the work's source code under sec.
> 2(b) requirements. As we have seen, sec. 2(b) requires access to
> source code be provided to "all third parties" and not the
> original licensor. In the legal arena you can't claim damages
> from some else's injuries. A plaintiff must suffer a personal
> "injury in fact" before he has standing in court. In the United
> States designated third party beneficiaries have standing to sue
> in their own right.
> 
> "The "irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains
> three elements": "[T]he plaintiff must have suffered an injury in
> fact," "there must be a causal connection between the injury and
> the conduct complained of, " and "it must be likely . . . that
> the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Id. At
> 560-61 (internal quotations omitted).(5) The plaintiffs, as the
> party invoking federal jurisdiction, bear the burden of
> establishing these elements. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
> Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). Failure to establish any one
> deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear the suit.;
> Elizabeth Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories (01-40122) (5th
> Cir. 2002)

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

 -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Miles Bader wrote:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >>I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:
> >>
> >> Which sadly, is not much common sense.
> >
> > I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
> 
> Alfred does not represent or speak for "GNU".

He is uber GNUtian. Next step in the evolution of GNUtians like you Bader.

regards, 
alexander. 

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

 -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Miles Bader]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:
>>
>> Which sadly, is not much common sense.
>
> I see GNU likes civilized discourse.

Alfred does not represent or speak for "GNU".

-Miles

-- 
/\ /\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute kitty virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[n . torrey . pines]

On Oct 19, 9:47 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:
>
> Which sadly, is not much common sense.

I see GNU likes civilized discourse.

>When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
>but only its interface in your product. The users of your product
>may or may not opt to use it with the library in question.
>
> You are including code as well, macros for example.

If they are part of the interface (e.g. some convenience macros), and
the interface is not owned by the library author, how does this even
modify anything I said?

OTOH if the macro usage is an "interface", but their implementation is
not, the situation is similar to C++ templates and static linking.

> The
> binary is also combined into one big blob when run,

But not even by me. The user chooses to combine it. I don't. For all I
care, the user may choose to combine it with some other library, which
he may even write himself, with a compatible interface.

> which means that
> it does not only share `interface', but memory and everything else as
> would be done during static linking.

P.S. Please reply to newsgroup.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:

Which sadly, is not much common sense.

   When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
   but only its interface in your product. The users of your product
   may or may not opt to use it with the library in question.

You are including code as well, macros for example.  The
binary is also combined into one big blob when run, which means that
it does not only share `interface', but memory and everything else as
would be done during static linking.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[n . torrey . pines]

On Oct 10, 5:44 pm, Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am currently developing a closed source application that
> is going to be used on Linux and Solaris. Question is,
>
> (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
> already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
> (specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
>
> (2) If a required GPL library is missing on the user's system,
> can I include a copy of this library in my software distribution?

Mike

I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:

When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
but only its interface in your product. The users of your product may
or may not opt to use it with the library in question.

Thus, the only claim the library author may have is to the part of the
interface you included. If the interface is not owned by him, the
library author can not dictate what conditions you distribute your
product under.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

rjack wrote:

Alexander Terekhov wrote:


I hope than Monsoon folks will take an opportunity to trash Moglen's 
nonsensical GNU legal theory myths in federal court. 


The GPL myth gives rise to another problem.

That problem is "legal standing". A license such as the GPL 
contains terms that direct "designated third party 
beneficiaries". The GPL's term 2(b) demands:


b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that 
in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or 
any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all 
third parties under the terms of this License.


Any consideration flowing from the GPL is assigned to "all third 
parties". This consideration is certainly sufficient under 
contract law to form a valid contract:


“In addition, under contract law, a contract is supported by 
consideration even if the consideration flows solely to a third 
party. See Mencher v. Weiss, 114 N.E.2d at 181(“[I]t is 
fundamental that a benefit flowing to a third person or legal 
entity constitutes a sufficient consideration for the promise of 
another.”); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 71, cmt. e (1981) 
(“It matters not from whom the consideration moves or to whom it 
goes. If it is bargained for and given in exchange for the 
promise, the promise is not gratuitous.”); see generally 3 
WILLISTON § 7:5, at 60 (“It is well settled that a detriment 
suffered by the promisee at the promisor’s request and as the 
price for the promise is sufficient, despite the fact that the 
promisor is not benefited as well.”); In re: Asia Global 
Crossing, Ltd., et al. 322 B.R. 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., March 21, 
2005).


There is a fundamental principle underlying all actions in 
federal courts:


“Standing doctrine delimits federal jurisdiction to, among other 
things, cases involving real injuries to plaintiffs, the 
so-called "injury-in-fact" requirement.”; Brooklyn Legal Services 
Corp. v. Legal Services Corp., 462 F.3d 219 (Second Cir. 2006).


Although the copyright owners filed the action in federal court 
in the Monsoon case they have suffered no "injury in fact" from 
the claimed breach of the GPL -- which is stated in the complaint 
as failure to provide access to the work's source code under sec. 
2(b) requirements. As we have seen, sec. 2(b) requires access to 
source code be provided to "all third parties" and not the 
original licensor. In the legal arena you can't claim damages 
from some else's injuries. A plaintiff must suffer a personal 
"injury in fact" before he has standing in court. In the United 
States designated third party beneficiaries have standing to sue 
in their own right.


"The "irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains 
three elements": "[T]he plaintiff must have suffered an injury in 
fact," "there must be a causal connection between the injury and 
the conduct complained of, " and "it must be likely . . . that 
the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Id. At 
560-61 (internal quotations omitted).(5) The plaintiffs, as the 
party invoking federal jurisdiction, bear the burden of 
establishing these elements. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 
Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). Failure to establish any one 
deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear the suit.; 
Elizabeth Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories (01-40122) (5th 
Cir. 2002)





___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> rjack wrote:
> >
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >
> > > Note that the GPLv2 does not acknowledge First Sale when it states
> > > "However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
> > > the Program or its derivative works."
> >
> > The GPL (and Herr Professor Moglen) is attempting to redefine
> > what a "condition" means with respect to a copyright license. A
> > "condition" is not a legal term concerning *formation* of a
> > contract but refers to *performance* of a contract.
> >
> > "Regarding plaintiff's first argument that the credit requirement
> > was a condition precedent to the granting of the license, the
> > court does not agree. According to the Restatement (Second) of
> > Contracts § 224 (1981), a condition is "an event, not certain to
> > occur, which must occur, unless its nonoccurrence is excused,
> > before performance under a contract becomes due." See also Wells
> > Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1012, 1019 (Fed. Cir.
> > 1996) (quoting In re Matthieson, 63 B.R. 56, 60 (D. Minn. 1986),
> > for the statement that "a condition precedent is a condition
> > precedent to performance under the contract, not formation of the
> > contract. When a condition precedent is not satisfied, it
> > relieves a party to the contract of the obligation to perform. It
> > does not negate the existence of the contract or the binding
> > contractual relationship of the parties."), cert. denied, 520
> > U.S. 1116 (1997). "Conditions precedent are disfavored and will
> > not be read into a contract unless required by plain, unambiguous
> > language." Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d at 559 n.7;
> > accord Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d at 754; I.A.E.,
> > Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d at 778."; RT Computer Graphics v, United
> > States,(USCFC 1999.)
> >
> > http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Horn/99/RTCOMP.htm
> 
> I hope than Monsoon folks will take an opportunity to trash Moglen's
> nonsensical GNU legal theory myths in federal court. The answer is due
> October 22.
> 
> U.S. District Court
> United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
> (Foley Square)
> CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-08205-JES
> 
> Andersen et al v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.
> Assigned to: Judge John E. Sprizzo
> Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
  

> Date Filed: 09/19/2007
> Jury Demand: None
> Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
  ^

> Jurisdiction: Federal Question

This is golden:

"Like the programmer in Graham v. James and the songwriter in Maxwell, 
RT Graphics never formally withdrew previously-given permission which 
allowed the alleged infringer to use the copyrighted material. See also 
Fosson v. Palace (Waterland), Ltd., 78 F.3d 1448, 1455 (9th Cir. 1996) 
(even assuming that movie producer materially breached licensing 
agreement to use composer's song in film, composer never attempted to 
exercise any right of rescission and summary judgment of 
noninfringement of copyright was proper); Cities Serv. Helex, Inc. v. 
United States, 543 F.2d 1306, 1313 (Ct. Cl. 1976) ("A material breach 
does not automatically and ipso facto end a contract. It merely gives 
the injured party the right to end the agreement; . . . ."). In the 
case at bar, the court finds that there was no rescission of the 
contract by plaintiff. Moreover, the Postal Service's conduct was 
insufficient to justify any rescission which could have taken place, 
and did not indicate a repudiation of the licensing agreement. 
Accordingly, the court holds that the Use Agreement was at all times 
valid and enforceable during the course of this dispute, and any 
remedy which the plaintiff may seek for its failure to receive credit 
cannot properly be based on a theory of copyright infringement. "

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Horn/99/RTCOMP.htm

So much about GNU legal theory of automatically and ipso facto 
termination on a slightest breach without ability to cure and without 
any formal withdrawal of previously-given permission by the injured 
party.

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

 -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

rjack wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> > Note that the GPLv2 does not acknowledge First Sale when it states
> > "However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
> > the Program or its derivative works."
> 
> The GPL (and Herr Professor Moglen) is attempting to redefine
> what a "condition" means with respect to a copyright license. A
> "condition" is not a legal term concerning *formation* of a
> contract but refers to *performance* of a contract.
> 
> "Regarding plaintiff's first argument that the credit requirement
> was a condition precedent to the granting of the license, the
> court does not agree. According to the Restatement (Second) of
> Contracts § 224 (1981), a condition is "an event, not certain to
> occur, which must occur, unless its nonoccurrence is excused,
> before performance under a contract becomes due." See also Wells
> Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1012, 1019 (Fed. Cir.
> 1996) (quoting In re Matthieson, 63 B.R. 56, 60 (D. Minn. 1986),
> for the statement that "a condition precedent is a condition
> precedent to performance under the contract, not formation of the
> contract. When a condition precedent is not satisfied, it
> relieves a party to the contract of the obligation to perform. It
> does not negate the existence of the contract or the binding
> contractual relationship of the parties."), cert. denied, 520
> U.S. 1116 (1997). "Conditions precedent are disfavored and will
> not be read into a contract unless required by plain, unambiguous
> language." Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d at 559 n.7;
> accord Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d at 754; I.A.E.,
> Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d at 778."; RT Computer Graphics v, United
> States,(USCFC 1999.)
> 
> http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Horn/99/RTCOMP.htm

I hope than Monsoon folks will take an opportunity to trash Moglen's 
nonsensical GNU legal theory myths in federal court. The answer is due
October 22.

U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-08205-JES

Andersen et al v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.
Assigned to: Judge John E. Sprizzo
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement 
Date Filed: 09/19/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question 

Plaintiff 
Erik Andersen 
an individual  represented by Daniel B. Ravicher 
Software Freedom Law Center 
1995 Broadway, 17th Floor 
New York, NY 10023-5882 
(212)580-0800 
Fax: (212)580-0898 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 
 
Plaintiff 
Rob Landley 
an individual  represented by Daniel B. Ravicher 
(See above for address) 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 
 

V.
 
Defendant 
Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.  
 

Date Filed # Docket Text 
09/19/2007 1 COMPLAINT against Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.. (Filing Fee $
350.00, Receipt Number 627415)Document filed by Erik Andersen, Rob
Landley.(jpo) (Entered: 09/20/2007) 
09/19/2007   SUMMONS ISSUED as to Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. (jpo)
(Entered: 09/20/2007) 
09/19/2007   Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (jpo)
(Entered: 09/20/2007) 
09/19/2007   Case Designated ECF. (jpo) (Entered: 09/20/2007) 
10/10/2007 2 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER: It is
hereby ordered that Defendant Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. until October 22,
2007 to answer the Complaint filed on 9/19/07 by Plaintiffs Erik
Andersen and Rob Landley. (dle) (Entered: 10/10/2007) 

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

 -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:


Note that the GPLv2 does not acknowledge First Sale when it states
"However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
the Program or its derivative works." 


The GPL (and Herr Professor Moglen) is attempting to redefine 
what a "condition" means with respect to a copyright license. A 
"condition" is not a legal term concerning *formation* of a 
contract but refers to *performance* of a contract.


"Regarding plaintiff's first argument that the credit requirement 
was a condition precedent to the granting of the license, the 
court does not agree. According to the Restatement (Second) of 
Contracts § 224 (1981), a condition is "an event, not certain to 
occur, which must occur, unless its nonoccurrence is excused, 
before performance under a contract becomes due." See also Wells 
Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1012, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 
1996) (quoting In re Matthieson, 63 B.R. 56, 60 (D. Minn. 1986), 
for the statement that "a condition precedent is a condition 
precedent to performance under the contract, not formation of the 
contract. When a condition precedent is not satisfied, it 
relieves a party to the contract of the obligation to perform. It 
does not negate the existence of the contract or the binding 
contractual relationship of the parties."), cert. denied, 520 
U.S. 1116 (1997). "Conditions precedent are disfavored and will 
not be read into a contract unless required by plain, unambiguous 
language." Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d at 559 n.7; 
accord Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d at 754; I.A.E., 
Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d at 778."; RT Computer Graphics v, United 
States,(USCFC 1999.)


http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Horn/99/RTCOMP.htm
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

John Hasler wrote:
> 
> Tim Smith writes:
> > Especially when the later keep overlooking a major area of copyright law:
> > first sale.  As more and more embedded systems use Linux, and more and
> > more OEMs sell pre-built Linux systems, first sale is going to become
> > very relevant.
> 
> First sale does not impinge on GPLv2 in any way whatosever.

Note that the GPLv2 does not acknowledge First Sale when it states
"However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
the Program or its derivative works." It also ignores Section 117,
which gives "the owner of a copy of a computer program" the right to
"make or authorize the making of another copy OR ADAPTATION of that
computer program" if it is "an essential step in the utilization of
the computer program in conjunction with a machine".

As for GPLv3, Professor Hollaar (who worked on Internet, copyright, 
and patent issues as a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Fellow) has 
commented regarding GPLv3 wording (and apparently his comments were 
simply dismissed from consideration by RMS, Eben & Co.) on
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments system:

-
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 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
-

Recently one guy from "freedom camp" told me that the GPLv3 statement

"This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other
equivalent, as provided by copyright law."

fixes all that, should read

"This License acknowledges all limitations on exclusive rights as
provided by copyright law."

and that it overrides all other statements in the GPL contradicting it
(all other statements including all those erroneous proclamations
pointed out by Hollaar).

No wonder nobody can grok the GPL having undrunken state of mind...

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

 -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[John Hasler]

Tim Smith writes:
> Especially when the later keep overlooking a major area of copyright law:
> first sale.  As more and more embedded systems use Linux, and more and
> more OEMs sell pre-built Linux systems, first sale is going to become
> very relevant.

First sale does not impinge on GPLv2 in any way whatosever.
-- 
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 question

[Tim Smith]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rjack is neither a troll nor a lawyer. Rjack relies on the text 
> of published United States statutes and federal court case law 
> for his personal observations.
> 
> Ultimately, the Constitution and the Copyright Act mean exactly 
> what the men in the black robes say it means (especially the 
> Supreme Court and the Federal Courts of Appeals).
> 
> If rjack sees the name of a copyright "expert" repeatedly cited 
> to by the courts for legal authority (i.e. Nimmer, Goldstein, 
> Patry) he listens closely. Conversely, when he sees someone (i.e. 
> Eben Moglen at the FSF or Pamela Jones at Groklaw) make claims 
> that obviously contradict established precedental rulings by the 
> appellate courts he suspects that someone may be spreading 
> nonsense propaganda.

Especially when the later keep overlooking a major area of copyright 
law: first sale.  As more and more embedded systems use Linux, and more 
and more OEMs sell pre-built Linux systems, first sale is going to 
become very relevant.

-- 
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[John Hasler]

mike3 writes:
> OK. I'm curious, though, you mentioned the version 2. Is the version 3
> more complicated, then?

By orders of magnitude.  Do you know patent law?
-- 
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 question

[mike3]

On Oct 14, 6:50 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mike3 writes:
> > So why not make a _clear and simple_ free-software license?
>
> "Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler" --A. Einstein
>
> The GPLv2 is as simple as possible given it's goals.  If you want something
> simpler for your software use the BSD.  

OK. I'm curious, though, you mentioned the version 2. Is the
version 3 more complicated, then?

> --
> 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 question

[mike3]

On Oct 14, 6:55 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mike3 writes:
> > What I mean is if you choose to use GPL code in your programs, then if
> > you wish to distribute those programs, you must do so under GPL -- and
> > not just the GPLed part, but the entire original part that you put your
> > little heart and soul into making as well.
>
> So choose not to use GPL code.
>

Sure. I never said I _had_ to use GPL code.

> > What I'm talking about is where you _do_ use enough material that
> > qualifies for copyright. Then since you have agreed to the terms of the
> > license, you must now release any original work that uses that scrap of
> > GPL code as GPL, or not release it at all (or not use the code, but
> > that's understood, no?).
>
> Yes.  So what?  Would you rather be told that you cannot release the source
> at all and must pay $$ for every binary you distribute?

"So what?" Well, I'm talking about what I consider "viral". Would
I rather be told I could not release the code for my program and
must pay the author? Well, if I did not want to release the code,
maybe, but if I don't want to pay the author, that's a problem, now
isn't it? If I wanted to release the code and was told I couldn't that
would be a problem too. With the GPL, I may not have to pay the
author, but if I do not want to release the source, I have a problem.
If I do want to release the source, then it's fine. However you look
at it, if your interests clash with the license, then the only right
and
legal thing to do is to simply not enter into the agreement, and not
use the code. That's the bottom line.

> --
> 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 question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > Otherwise, shun the offer.

   And I did not preclude that in my postings. One can either accept
   the offer or reject it. But if one accepts, one must also accept
   the strings.

Obviously.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   As for the "viral", that's just what I call it. *If you choose* to
   use GPL code in your program, [...]

That is the key, if _you_ choose.  Nobody forced you, a virus attacks
a host without asking.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   (1) Its runtime uses GPL code for its "edit_distance()" function,
   but only provides source for this one function but not the entire
   library.  (says so in the docs that code for this function is
   provided to comply with its license) Does the GPL allow that? Can I
   do the same in my own project?

As I already answer: No, and No.

   (2) Included in the distribution is a binary copy of gdbm. It
   appears it is not otherwise used but is redistributed without
   source and documented, but its GPLness is not otherwise
   mentioned. Is there a problem here, and if yes, what is it?

As I already answered: Yes, the GPL states that the WHOLE work must be
licensed under the GPL.  Since it isn't, it is a license violation.

   (3) The linux version links with and distributes binary copies of
   BFD. From previous replies I gather I can not do that in my projects?

Correct.

   (4) Also included in the win32 version is a program called
   "windent", a version of GNU indent 1.10.0 with added GUI, but no
   source code. This one is really confusing. GNU indent is derived
   from some BSD licensed code, but also contains source files
   licensed under GPL. That would make the whole work GPL, right?

Correct.

   Yet in the manual page it says it's a BSD license. But the COPYING
   file says it's GPL.  Very confusing!!!  What is the real license
   here, and why?

The man page might be licensed under the GPL, the man page might be
refering to a BSD indent, your question is to vauge to answer.

   Are modified versions allowed?

Ofcourse, both the modifed BSD license, and the GNU GPL are free
software licenses.


Please refer to the GNU GPL FAQ in the future: 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html











___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > What other word is there for it?

   How about GPL?

Copyleft works as well.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Question is, what is the difference between

   (1) calling a function in a GPL shared library

   (2) running an external GPL program and parsing its output

One shares code, the other doesn't (unless the output contains
copyrightable bits).

As for rjack, ignore him.

   > > How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
   >
   > Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors?

   My engineer thinks that's unlikely for a number of reasons...
   (sorry for picking on afformentioned project again, nothing
   personal, it's just the first result on my research list)

   (1) afformentioned project is free for personal use.

   (2) afformentioned project comes with 'windent', a gui'fied
   version of GNU indent 1.10.0 (says so right there in its main
   window, "This is adaption of Indent 1.10.0, Copyright GNU."),
   yet no source code available; plus it's distributed as part of
   a proprietary project.

   (3) afformentioned project's runtime contains a function named
   'edit_distance()' that, according to runtime docs, is released
   under GPL terms, and goes on,
   |
   |The source code is distributed in the lcc directory,
   |   "\lcc\src\editdistance" as required by this license.
   |
   i.e., runtime is closed source, only sources for GPL part are
   provided. With a proprietary license, this surely wouldn't be
   necessary, but under GPL the whole library must be GPL, right?

Yes, this has been repeated now several times.  If you use GPL
licensed code (either linking, copying, or whatever), then the *WHOLE*
work must be licensed under the terms of the GPL.

   So let me rephrase my initial question, "If I do get caught, what
   are the consequences. Are there any?"

You get sued, and you get to pay legal fees and damages.  Or you
settle, if you get the chance, and release your deriviate work under
the GPL.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Byung-Hee HWANG]

On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 08:04 -0400, rjack wrote:
> Mike Cox wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 3:08 am, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [bah, google groups seems broken]
> 
> >> Mike Cox writes:
> >>> In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
> >>> legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to think
> >>> the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible.  Confusion
> >>> arises again.
> 
> >> Rjack is a troll.  There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> >> writes.
> > 
> > I'm new here; how am I supposed to know who is a troll and who
> > is not. Last time I was here he was not. To the naked eye he seems
> > to be very fluent in copyright law.
> 
> Rjack is neither a troll nor a lawyer.
[...snip...]

You would better change your mail address. There is no domain like
'com.izb.knu.ac.kr'. If you do not change your mail address, people
won't trust your words at all. 

-- 
Byung-Hee HWANG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
InZealBomb, Kyungpook National University, KOREA

"Life is so beautiful."
-- Vito Corleone, "Chapter 29", page 406


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 08:04:49AM -0400, rjack wrote:
> >>Rjack is a troll.  There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> >>writes.
> >
> Rjack is neither a troll nor a lawyer. Rjack relies on the text 
> of published United States statutes and federal court case law 
> for his personal observations.

... then adds pure lies to create magic steps into which a schizofrenic
reality suddenly makes sense with what he reads in the law books.

Treat your self... Therekhov's dual personality...

Rui

-- 
Pzat!
Today is Setting Orange, the 71st day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[rjack]

Mike Cox wrote:

On Oct 14, 3:08 am, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[bah, google groups seems broken]



Mike Cox writes:

In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to think
the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible.  Confusion
arises again.



Rjack is a troll.  There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
writes.


I'm new here; how am I supposed to know who is a troll and who
is not. Last time I was here he was not. To the naked eye he seems
to be very fluent in copyright law.


Rjack is neither a troll nor a lawyer. Rjack relies on the text 
of published United States statutes and federal court case law 
for his personal observations.


Ultimately, the Constitution and the Copyright Act mean exactly 
what the men in the black robes say it means (especially the 
Supreme Court and the Federal Courts of Appeals).


If rjack sees the name of a copyright "expert" repeatedly cited 
to by the courts for legal authority (i.e. Nimmer, Goldstein, 
Patry) he listens closely. Conversely, when he sees someone (i.e. 
Eben Moglen at the FSF or Pamela Jones at Groklaw) make claims 
that obviously contradict established precedental rulings by the 
appellate courts he suspects that someone may be spreading 
nonsense propaganda.






___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Mike Cox]

On Oct 14, 3:08 am, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Cox writes:
> > In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
> > legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to think
> > the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible.  Confusion
> > arises again.
>
> Rjack is a troll.  There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> writes.

I'm new here; how am I supposed to know who is a troll and who
is not. Last time I was here he was not. To the naked eye he seems
to be very fluent in copyright law.


> > (2) afformentioned project comes with 'windent', a gui'fied version of
> > GNU indent 1.10.0 (says so right there in its main window, "This is
> > adaption of Indent 1.10.0, Copyright GNU."), yet no source code
> > available; plus it's distributed as part of a proprietary project.
>
> Please identify the project so that the matter can be brought to the
> attention of the copyright owners.

Like I said upthread, the project is lcc-win32 / lcc-linux32,
availabe at


and


(1) Its runtime uses GPL code for its "edit_distance()" function, but
only provides source for this one function but not the entire library.
(says so in the docs that code for this function is provided to
comply with its license)
Does the GPL allow that? Can I do the same in my own project?

(2) Included in the distribution is a binary copy of gdbm. It appears
it is not otherwise used but is redistributed without source and
documented, but its GPLness is not otherwise mentioned. Is there a
problem here, and if yes, what is it?

(3) The linux version links with and distributes binary copies of
BFD. From previous replies I gather I can not do that in my projects?

(4) Also included in the win32 version is a program called
"windent", a version of GNU indent 1.10.0 with added GUI, but no
source code. This one is really confusing. GNU indent is derived
from some BSD licensed code, but also contains source files licensed
under GPL. That would make the whole work GPL, right? Yet in the
manual page it says it's a BSD license. But the COPYING file says
it's GPL.
Very confusing!!!
What is the real license here, and why? Are modified versions allowed?


> > I'm just trying to understand the difference between dynamic linking and,
> > say, running an external program and talking to it via some sort of IPC
> > mechanism.
>
> Some say there is none.  Others say there is.  Some of the latter own
> significant copyrights and have lawyers.  The issue has not yet been tested
> in court but you could be the first.

But before going to court, what *IS* the difference. Some say dynamic
linking started exactly like that, loading shared code as a separate
"process" and talking to it via some obscure mechanism. I hear some
of those are still in use today. So where do you draw the line?


--
Mike Cox (the_real_mike_cox)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Mike Cox]

On Oct 14, 3:08 am, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[bah, google groups seems broken]
> Mike Cox writes:
>> In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
>> legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to think
>> the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible.  Confusion
>> arises again.
>
> Rjack is a troll.  There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> writes.

I'm new here; how am I supposed to know who is a troll and who
is not. Last time I was here he was not. To the naked eye he seems
to be very fluent in copyright law.


>> (2) afformentioned project comes with 'windent', a gui'fied version of
>> GNU indent 1.10.0 (says so right there in its main window, "This is
>> adaption of Indent 1.10.0, Copyright GNU."), yet no source code
>> available; plus it's distributed as part of a proprietary project.
>
> Please identify the project so that the matter can be brought to the
> attention of the copyright owners.

Like I said upthread, the project is lcc-win32 / lcc-linux32,
availabe at


and


(1) Its runtime uses GPL code for its "edit_distance()" function, but
only provides source for this one function but not the entire library.
(says so in the docs that code for this function is provided to
comply with its license)
Does the GPL allow that? Can I do the same in my own project?

(2) Included in the distribution is a binary copy of gdbm. It appears
it is not otherwise used but is redistributed without source and
documented, but its GPLness is not otherwise mentioned. Is there a
problem here, and if yes, what is it?

(3) The linux version links with and distributes binary copies of
BFD. From previous replies I gather I can not do that in my projects?

(4) Also included in the win32 version is a program called
"windent", a version of GNU indent 1.10.0 with added GUI, but no
source code. This one is really confusing. GNU indent is derived
from some BSD licensed code, but also contains source files licensed
under GPL. That would make the whole work GPL, right? Yet in the
manual page it says it's a BSD license. But the COPYING file says
it's GPL.
Very confusing!!!
What is the real license here, and why? Are modified versions allowed?


>> I'm just trying to understand the difference between dynamic linking and,
>> say, running an external program and talking to it via some sort of IPC
>> mechanism.
>
> Some say there is none.  Others say there is.  Some of the latter own
> significant copyrights and have lawyers.  The issue has not yet been
> tested in court but you could be the first.

But before going to court, what *IS* the difference. Some say dynamic
linking started exactly like that, loading shared code as a separate
"process" and talking to it via some obscure mechanism. I hear some
of those are still in use today. So where do you draw the line?


--
Mike Cox (the_real_mike_cox)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Miles Bader wrote:

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Rjack is a troll.  There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
writes.

FWIW, Mike Cox is a troll too, though perhaps a slightly more subtle one
than bumblers like rjack or wigged out nutcases like Terekhov.


Greetings to Mike Cox. Troll brigade growing!!! Oh poor GNUtians.

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

 -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte


When replying to a legal argument or belief supported by 
reference to applicable legal principle or citation to case 
precedent, attacking the character of the person advancing the 
argument i.e. calling them a "troll" renders the reply irrelevant.


You must base your reply upon citation to appropriate legal 
principle or case law that refutes the original sources. 
Attempting to refute rational argument utilizing ad hominen 
attack implies no reasonable reply is available.


People participating in this forum are obviously capable of 
checking cited legal authorities for themselves. Denigrating the 
character of someone citing to a legal resource does nothing to 
disprove the content of the resource. Appealing to base emotional 
reaction instead of urging rational thought should be left to 
political campaign managers


jack




___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Miles Bader wrote:
> 
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Rjack is a troll.  There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> > writes.
> 
> FWIW, Mike Cox is a troll too, though perhaps a slightly more subtle one
> than bumblers like rjack or wigged out nutcases like Terekhov.

Greetings to Mike Cox. Troll brigade growing!!! Oh poor GNUtians.

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

 -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[John Hasler]

mike3 writes:
> What I mean is if you choose to use GPL code in your programs, then if
> you wish to distribute those programs, you must do so under GPL -- and
> not just the GPLed part, but the entire original part that you put your
> little heart and soul into making as well.

So choose not to use GPL code.

> What I'm talking about is where you _do_ use enough material that
> qualifies for copyright. Then since you have agreed to the terms of the
> license, you must now release any original work that uses that scrap of
> GPL code as GPL, or not release it at all (or not use the code, but
> that's understood, no?).

Yes.  So what?  Would you rather be told that you cannot release the source
at all and must pay $$ for every binary you distribute?
-- 
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 question

[John Hasler]

mike3 writes:
> So why not make a _clear and simple_ free-software license?

"Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler" --A. Einstein

The GPLv2 is as simple as possible given it's goals.  If you want something
simpler for your software use the BSD.  
-- 
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 question

[mike3]

On Oct 14, 12:59 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What other word is there for it?
>
> Reciprocal? If you chose to receive an offer with strings attached
> that say you must be reciprocal, then you must be reciprocal.
>

Well, alright.

> Otherwise, shun the offer.
>

And I did not preclude that in my postings. One can either accept
the offer or reject it. But if one accepts, one must also accept
the strings.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[mike3]

On Oct 13, 2:46 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mike3 writes:
> > As for the "viral", that's just what I call it.
>
> Viral implies that it is infectious and can spread in a disease-like
> fashion.  According to Microsoft this means that if you ever let any GPL
> code onto your property every piece of software you ever have or ever will
> write might become infected and have to be released under the GPL.
>

That's not what I mean by the term. What I mean is if you choose to
use
GPL code in your programs, then if you wish to distribute those
programs, you must do so under GPL -- and not just the GPLed part,
but the entire original part that you put your little heart and soul
into
making as well. Otherwise, you cannot use the GPL code in them,
unless of course you managed to secure an alternative licensing
agreement from the author(s). That's what "viral", in _my_ book,
means.

> > ...If you choose to use GPL code in your program, even if only a few
> > lines, then you are legally obligated to release the entire program, not
> > just the GPL code,
>
> You are not required to release it at all.  It is just that if you choose
> to release it you must do so under the terms of the GPL.
>

That's what I meant. I thought that's "understood". Of *course* you
don't have to release it. I'm talking about from the perspective
of what happens if you do want to release it.

> > What other word is there for it?
>
> How about GPL?
>
> BTW "a few lines" generally don't qualify for copyright at all.

No, I guess not. What I'm talking about is where you _do_ use
enough material that qualifies for copyright. Then since you
have agreed to the terms of the license, you must now release
any original work that uses that scrap of GPL code as GPL,
or not release it at all (or not use the code, but that's understood,
no?).

> --
> 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 question

[mike3]

On Oct 13, 6:44 pm, Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Possibly, just like a dozen other such projects I found during
> my research. But most probably aren't knowingly violating the
> GPL, it's just the GPL is way too complicated.
>

So why not make a _clear and simple_ free-software license?

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

> > What other word is there for it?

Reciprocal? If you chose to receive an offer with strings attached
that say you must be reciprocal, then you must be reciprocal.

Otherwise, shun the offer.

Rui

-- 
You are what you see.
Today is Boomtime, the 68th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Byung-Hee HWANG]

On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 15:18 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Rjack is a troll.  There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> > writes.
> 
> FWIW, Mike Cox is a troll too, though perhaps a slightly more subtle one
> than bumblers like rjack or wigged out nutcases like Terekhov.

BTW, who is rjack? There is no domain like 'come.izb.knu.ac.kr'.
Anyway, we deployed DKIM (RFC4871) because unknown user like rjack.
So from now on, please do not trust rjack's word at all.

-- 
Byung-Hee HWANG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

"He's a responsible man in his own way."
-- Michael Corleone, "Chapter 25", page 363


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Miles Bader]

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rjack is a troll.  There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> writes.

FWIW, Mike Cox is a troll too, though perhaps a slightly more subtle one
than bumblers like rjack or wigged out nutcases like Terekhov.

-Miles

-- 
"1971 pickup truck; will trade for guns"
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[John Hasler]

Mike Cox writes:
> In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
> legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to think
> the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible.  Confusion
> arises again.

Rjack is a troll.  There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
writes.

> (2) afformentioned project comes with 'windent', a gui'fied version of
> GNU indent 1.10.0 (says so right there in its main window, "This is
> adaption of Indent 1.10.0, Copyright GNU."), yet no source code
> available; plus it's distributed as part of a proprietary project.

Please identify the project so that the matter can be brought to the
attention of the copyright owners.

> Also from talking to other people, what this boils down to is the GPL is
> way too complicated for average to advanced programmers to understand;
> I'm not even sure I myself understand it completely at this time.

GPLv2 is quite simple.  Quit studying it and learn a bit about copyright.

> So let me rephrase my initial question, "If I do get caught, what
> are the consequences. Are there any?"

Google "statutory damages".

> I'm just trying to understand the difference between dynamic linking and,
> say, running an external program and talking to it via some sort of IPC
> mechanism.

Some say there is none.  Others say there is.  Some of the latter own
significant copyrights and have lawyers.  The issue has not yet been tested
in court but you could be the first.
-- 
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 question

[Mike Cox]

On Oct 12, 5:37 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
> > I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
> > *contain* code from a GPL program?
>
> Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice
> so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a
> lawyer and obtain a binding legal opinion.

We're not at that stage yet but of course are going to have a lawyer
look at it at some later time.

Question is, what is the difference between

(1) calling a function in a GPL shared library

(2) running an external GPL program and parsing its output

Upon further investigation, (1) could be illegal but (2) may be
not, but what is the difference?

In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1)
is legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to
think the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible.
Confusion arises again.


> > How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
>
> Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors?

My engineer thinks that's unlikely for a number of reasons...
(sorry for picking on afformentioned project again, nothing
personal, it's just the first result on my research list)

(1) afformentioned project is free for personal use.

(2) afformentioned project comes with 'windent', a gui'fied
version of GNU indent 1.10.0 (says so right there in its main
window, "This is adaption of Indent 1.10.0, Copyright GNU."),
yet no source code available; plus it's distributed as part of
a proprietary project.

(3) afformentioned project's runtime contains a function named
'edit_distance()' that, according to runtime docs, is released
under GPL terms, and goes on,
|
|The source code is distributed in the lcc directory,
|   "\lcc\src\editdistance" as required by this license.
|
i.e., runtime is closed source, only sources for GPL part are
provided. With a proprietary license, this surely wouldn't be
necessary, but under GPL the whole library must be GPL, right?

Also from talking to other people, what this boils down to is the
GPL is way too complicated for average to advanced programmers
to understand; I'm not even sure I myself understand it completely
at this time.


> It could also be the case that they haven't been caught yet...

Possibly, just like a dozen other such projects I found during
my research. But most probably aren't knowingly violating the
GPL, it's just the GPL is way too complicated.

So let me rephrase my initial question, "If I do get caught, what
are the consequences. Are there any?"


> > Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating GPL-covered
> > software"?
>
> You seem say it's "mere" as if it isn't anything important, are you a
> programmer or someone trying to circunvent the nice license?

I'm just trying to understand the difference between dynamic linking
and, say, running an external program and talking to it via some sort
of IPC mechanism.


--
Mike Cox (the_real_mike_cox)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[John Hasler]

mike3 writes:
> As for the "viral", that's just what I call it.

Viral implies that it is infectious and can spread in a disease-like
fashion.  According to Microsoft this means that if you ever let any GPL
code onto your property every piece of software you ever have or ever will
write might become infected and have to be released under the GPL.

> ...If you choose to use GPL code in your program, even if only a few
> lines, then you are legally obligated to release the entire program, not
> just the GPL code,

You are not required to release it at all.  It is just that if you choose
to release it you must do so under the terms of the GPL.

> What other word is there for it?

How about GPL?

BTW "a few lines" generally don't qualify for copyright at all.
-- 
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 question

[mike3]

On Oct 13, 8:22 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:34:36AM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
> >> > I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
> >> > *contain* code from a GPL program?
>
> >> Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice
> >> so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a
> >> lawyer and obtain a binding legal opinion.
>
> >> Otherwise, feel free to run the risks of getting fired or bankrupt.
>
> >> > How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
>
> >> Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors?
> >> It could also be the case that they haven't been caught yet...
>
> >I'd find it a little strange that a Free software author -- no, not
> >just that, but one for the *GNU Project*, as I think "libbfd" is
> >GNU -- would agree to a proprietary (ie. goes against the ideals of
> >"Freedom") license, unless of course they realized that _their_
> >stuff would still be free as you could get the code for it from
> >some place, eg they just gave a license that overrode the virality.
>
> > First of all, the GNU GPL is not viral.  You are free to not accept
> > it.  Secondly, Rui is simply confused, most probobly not knowing that
> > BFD is part of the GNU projetc, and that the FSF is the copyright
> > holder.  One cannot remeber what every tiny bit of software is part
> > of.
>
> >However it still seems odd that a GNU Project author would
> >even support a proprietary project...
>
> > He didn't.  All Rui noted was that the copyright holder (not knowing
> > that it was the FSF) could have licnesed the program under a
> > proprietary license.  This is a simple fact.
>
> Yes, I had no idea it was a GNU project. If I did I wouldn't even
> raise the possibility :)
>

Thank you, and Alfred too, for the clarification.

As for the "viral", that's just what I call it. *If you choose* to use
GPL code in your program, even if only a few lines, then you
are legally obligated to release the entire program, not just the
GPL code, (ie. all the parts that are your own work as well)
under the GPL (unless of course you remove the GPL code so
it once again is 100% original). That is a fact. What other word
is there for it? Oh, that's right, copyleft. Oops, my bad :(

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:34:36AM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>> > I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
>> > *contain* code from a GPL program?
>>
>> Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice
>> so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a
>> lawyer and obtain a binding legal opinion.
>>
>> Otherwise, feel free to run the risks of getting fired or bankrupt.
>>
>> > How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
>>
>> Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors?
>> It could also be the case that they haven't been caught yet...
>>
> 
>I'd find it a little strange that a Free software author -- no, not
>just that, but one for the *GNU Project*, as I think "libbfd" is
>GNU -- would agree to a proprietary (ie. goes against the ideals of
>"Freedom") license, unless of course they realized that _their_
>stuff would still be free as you could get the code for it from
>some place, eg they just gave a license that overrode the virality.
> 
> First of all, the GNU GPL is not viral.  You are free to not accept
> it.  Secondly, Rui is simply confused, most probobly not knowing that
> BFD is part of the GNU projetc, and that the FSF is the copyright
> holder.  One cannot remeber what every tiny bit of software is part
> of.
> 
>However it still seems odd that a GNU Project author would
>even support a proprietary project...
> 
> He didn't.  All Rui noted was that the copyright holder (not knowing
> that it was the FSF) could have licnesed the program under a
> proprietary license.  This is a simple fact.

Yes, I had no idea it was a GNU project. If I did I wouldn't even
raise the possibility :)

Rui

-- 
P'tang!
Today is Sweetmorn, the 67th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?

   Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the
   authors?  It could also be the case that they haven't been caught
   yet...

BFD is a GNU project, so no.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
   > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
   > > I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
   > > *contain* code from a GPL program?
   >
   > Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice
   > so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a
   > lawyer and obtain a binding legal opinion.
   >
   > Otherwise, feel free to run the risks of getting fired or bankrupt.
   >
   > > How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
   >
   > Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors?
   > It could also be the case that they haven't been caught yet...
   >

   I'd find it a little strange that a Free software author -- no, not
   just that, but one for the *GNU Project*, as I think "libbfd" is
   GNU -- would agree to a proprietary (ie. goes against the ideals of
   "Freedom") license, unless of course they realized that _their_
   stuff would still be free as you could get the code for it from
   some place, eg they just gave a license that overrode the virality.

First of all, the GNU GPL is not viral.  You are free to not accept
it.  Secondly, Rui is simply confused, most probobly not knowing that
BFD is part of the GNU projetc, and that the FSF is the copyright
holder.  One cannot remeber what every tiny bit of software is part
of.

   However it still seems odd that a GNU Project author would
   even support a proprietary project...

He didn't.  All Rui noted was that the copyright holder (not knowing
that it was the FSF) could have licnesed the program under a
proprietary license.  This is a simple fact.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL
   > states that the whole work has to be licensed under the same
   > terms.

   I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
   *contain* code from a GPL program?

Yes.

   For example, if you go to
   
   , download and install lccwin32.exe and look in its "lib" folder,
   there is a gdbmdll.dll library, yet the package neither is GPL nor
   are the sources publically available.

   Now go to
   
   and click through and download lccdist.tar.gz. In the "bin" folder
   there is a "lcc" program that requires libbfd-2.11.92.0.12.so, the
   same folder contains a binary libbfd-2.11.92.0.12.so, yet the
   package neither is GPL nor are the sources publically available.

   How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?

They aren't allowed to do that (assuming that the license for those
programs is really not compatible with the GNU GPL).  I'll forward
this to the FSF lawyers.  Thank you.

   > From the GNU GPL FAQ:

   Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

   Is it normative? Legaly binding?

Only the court can decide what is binding or not.

   > | I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
   > | system. Can I do this?

   Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating
   GPL-covered software"?

Yes.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[mike3]

On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
> > I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
> > *contain* code from a GPL program?
>
> Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice
> so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a
> lawyer and obtain a binding legal opinion.
>
> Otherwise, feel free to run the risks of getting fired or bankrupt.
>
> > How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
>
> Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors?
> It could also be the case that they haven't been caught yet...
>

I'd find it a little strange that a Free software author -- no, not
just
that, but one for the *GNU Project*, as I think "libbfd" is GNU --
would agree to a proprietary (ie. goes against the ideals of
"Freedom") license, unless of course they realized that _their_
stuff would still be free as you could get the code for it from
some place, eg they just gave a license that overrode the virality.
However it still seems odd that a GNU Project author would
even support a proprietary project...



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[mike3]

On Oct 12, 4:45 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mike3 writes:
> > I've never really been able to understand this exactly. Why wasn't the
> > license made so that it would only require you release the _GPL-covered
> > parts_ under GPL and distribute them in such a way that they remain free
> > -- why does it take releasing the original parts of the package TOO in
> > order to keep the GPL stuff free?
>
> The point is to increase the amount of Free Software.  Otherwise you might
> just as well use the BSD license.

That's what I've thought, but why doesn't the FAQ mention
that? It makes it seem like somehow that in order for the
GPL parts of your combined work to still be Free, the original
stuff you made must also be GPL as well, even though the
point of *that*, *specifically* is not to simply keep the GPL
stuff Free but to actually *increase* the amount of Free
software in existence.

> --
> 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 question

[John Hasler]

mike3 writes:
> I've never really been able to understand this exactly. Why wasn't the
> license made so that it would only require you release the _GPL-covered
> parts_ under GPL and distribute them in such a way that they remain free
> -- why does it take releasing the original parts of the package TOO in
> order to keep the GPL stuff free?

The point is to increase the amount of Free Software.  Otherwise you might
just as well use the BSD license.
-- 
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 question

[mike3]

On Oct 11, 2:57 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
>> > already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
>> > (specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
>>
>> Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
>> Software law.  The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
>> their copyrights.  Perhaps you could be a teat case.
>
>I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to
>do is not possible?
>
> Correct, you cannot link non-free software with a GPL library.
>
>If not, why?
>
> The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL states
> that the whole work has to be licensed under the same terms.
>
> From the GNU GPL FAQ:
>
> | I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
> | system. Can I do this?
>
> | You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary
> | system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to
> | copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you
> | could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system,
> | it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software
> | non-free too.

May I jump in here for a moment? I've never really been able to
understand this exactly. Why wasn't the license made so that it
would only require you release the _GPL-covered parts_ under
GPL and distribute them in such a way that they remain free --
why does it take releasing the original parts of the package TOO
in order to keep the GPL stuff free?



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
> I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
> *contain* code from a GPL program?

Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice
so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a
lawyer and obtain a binding legal opinion.

Otherwise, feel free to run the risks of getting fired or bankrupt.

> How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?

Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors?
It could also be the case that they haven't been caught yet...

> > From the GNU GPL FAQ:
> Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ? Is it normative? Legaly binding?

Did you even try? Search in Google for gpl faq, click on I'm Felling Lucky

The GNU GPL is normative, and legally binding. The FAQ aims to list a
series of questions you may have and put clear answers. Otherwise you
have to study the license and find out the questions & answers yourself.

It's there to help you understand the license.

> > | I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
> > | system. Can I do this?
> 
> Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating GPL-covered
> software"?

You seem say it's "mere" as if it isn't anything important, are you a
programmer or someone trying to circunvent the nice license?

Rui

-- 
Or is it?
Today is Setting Orange, the 66th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[rjack]

Mike Cox wrote:


Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ? Is it normative? Legaly binding?


http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

It is legally binding in all courts exercising jurisdiction under the
the authority of the GNU Republic.


Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating GPL-covered
software"?


17 USC Sec. 117 protects dynamic linking in memory unless contractually
prohibited. Why do I say unless contractually prohibited?

In 1976 Congress authorized The Commission on New Technological Uses:
"This is the area of computer uses... the The Commission on
New Technological Uses is, among other things, now engaged
in making a thorough study of the emerging patterns in this
field and it will, on the basis of its findings, recommend
definitive copyright provisions to deal with the situation."
--- House Report No. 94-1476

See http://digital-law-online.info/CONTU/contu6.html
(See the last sentence of this CONTU report quoted below)

"One who rightfully possesses a copy of a program, therefore, should be
provided with a legal right to copy it to that extent which will permit
its use by that possessor. This would include the right to load it into
a computer. . . Should proprietors feel strongly that {Page 14} they do
not want rightful possessors of copies of their programs to prepare such
adaptations, they could, of course, make such desires a contractual matter."

**The federal courts follow these recommendations very closely**




Mike Cox (the_real_mike_cox) [EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Mike Cox]

On Oct 11, 10:57 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
>> > already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
>> > (specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
>>
>> Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
>> Software law.  The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
>> their copyrights.  Perhaps you could be a teat case.
>
>I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to
>do is not possible?
>
> Correct, you cannot link non-free software with a GPL library.
>
>If not, why?
>
> The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL states
> that the whole work has to be licensed under the same terms.

I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
*contain*
code from a GPL program?

For example, if you go to
 ,
download and install lccwin32.exe and look in its "lib" folder, there
is a gdbmdll.dll library, yet the package neither is GPL nor are the
sources publically available.

Now go to

and click through and download lccdist.tar.gz. In the "bin" folder
there is a "lcc" program that requires libbfd-2.11.92.0.12.so, the
same folder contains a binary libbfd-2.11.92.0.12.so, yet the package
neither is GPL nor are the sources publically available.

How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?


> From the GNU GPL FAQ:

Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ? Is it normative? Legaly binding?

> | I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
> | system. Can I do this?

Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating GPL-covered
software"?

--
Mike Cox (the_real_mike_cox)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[rjack]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:


I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to do
is not possible?

Correct, you cannot link non-free software with a GPL library.

If not, why?

The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL states 
that the whole work has to be licensed under the same terms.




Link with GPL'd code and Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen will own your
program, your wife and kids, the family dog and your primary residence
-- tax free. Since you have encountered their universal and omnipotent
GPL license, if you even converse with your friends, their programs also
become GPL licensed works. Such is the power of the GPL, only a shaman
from the Ug!atia tribe of southern Ethiopia can undo its control over
your life.

rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
   > > already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
   > > (specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
   >
   > Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
   > Software law.  The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
   > their copyrights.  Perhaps you could be a teat case.

   I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to
   do is not possible?  

Correct, you cannot link non-free software with a GPL library.

   If not, why?  

The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL states
that the whole work has to be licensed under the same terms.


>From the GNU GPL FAQ:

| I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
| system. Can I do this?

| You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary
| system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to
| copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you
| could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system,
| it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software
| non-free too.

| A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended
| version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version
| of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released
| at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get
| the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage
| people to give back improvements that they make.

| However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered
| software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly,
| you must make sure that the free and non-free programs
| communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way
| that would make them effectively a single program.

| The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered
| software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The
| substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so
| that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you
| can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to
| cover the whole thing.

| If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and
| the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat
| them as two separate programs--but you have to do it
| properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what
| you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to
| make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the
| GPL-covered software in the collection.

| If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it
| "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users
| might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered
| software. But if they know that what they have received is a
| free program plus another program, side by side, their rights
| will be clear.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Mike Cox]

On Oct 11, 3:10 am, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Cox writes:
> > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries already
> > present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?  (specifically,
> > libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
>
> Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
> Software law.  The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
> their copyrights.  Perhaps you could be a teat case.

I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to
do is not possible?  If not, why?  I mean, off the top of my head I
could probably think of a dozen packages that already do the same;
heck, they even distribute GPL'ed dll's on Windows without source.
I mean, we're talking about dynamic linking, not extending some GPL
software.  Anyways, there should be enough precedence.


> > (2) If a required GPL library is missing on the user's system, can I
> > include a copy of this library in my software distribution?
>
> See above.

See above.


--
Mike Cox (the_real_mike_cox)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[mike3]

On Oct 10, 7:10 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Cox writes:
> > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries already
> > present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?  (specifically,
> > libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
>
> Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
> Software law.  The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
> their copyrights.  Perhaps you could be a teat case.
>

And of course they'd probably never grant permission or alternative
licenses to do it since that would go against the principle of freedom
for all, right?

> > (2) If a required GPL library is missing on the user's system, can I
> > include a copy of this library in my software distribution?
>
> See above.
> --
> 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 question

[John Hasler]

Mike Cox writes:
> (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries already
> present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?  (specifically,
> libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)

Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
Software law.  The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
their copyrights.  Perhaps you could be a teat case.

> (2) If a required GPL library is missing on the user's system, can I
> include a copy of this library in my software distribution?

See above.
-- 
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 question

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

On Aug 27, 8:46 pm, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>  "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Under the GPL am i allowed to modify an existing program that someone
> > else made (the program is under the GPL) and sell that version?
>
> Yes, as long as you make the source code available (including your
> modifications) and allow the purchasers to redistribute it.
>
> --
> 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 ***

thanks

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: gpl question

[Barry Margolin]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Under the GPL am i allowed to modify an existing program that someone
> else made (the program is under the GPL) and sell that version?

Yes, as long as you make the source code available (including your 
modifications) and allow the purchasers to redistribute it.

-- 
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 question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >And therefore distributing them even separately through
   >different channels is considered the same as distributing them
   >as a whole. So, in other words, the following holds true: If I
   >decide to use GPL code in my program, I am agreeing to "pay
   >for the code" with my own code -- because then I am forced to
   >release my own code as GPL as well.  I can't even release it
   >under another "free" system, no, it must be UNDER THE GPL!
   >What is the point of this?!
   >
   > To keep programs free.

   Or, would it be rephrased as to *set* code free, because until that
   GPL code got in there the code was NOT necessarily free to begin
   with (standard copyright restrictions apply unless and until the
   author waives them in a license, permission, etc.) but once the
   author used the GPL code he/she is implicitly agreeing to release
   the entirety of his/her program as free.

No, please refrain from putting words into my mouth.  Only the
copyright holder can set something free, nobody else, not the GPL, not
a judge, not your favourite deity.

   Because it doesn't just keep the GPL code free (distributing only
   the GPL code any not the rest of the combined work would still
   accomplish that) -- it leads to more code being free (the rest of
   the combined work) that may not have been free to begin with.  If
   one doesn't want to set said code free then they shouldn't use the
   GPL code.

It doesn't lead to anythin, the GPL does not force anyone to release
their changes under the GPL, you are perfectly free not to accept the
GPL.  But then you cannot use the GPL program.

   That's the thing I've been driving at all this time -- because you
   don't seem to see the difference between "keeping code free" and
   "setting code free". The former implies already free code, the
   latter implies code that was not free to begin with. GPL does
   both. Not one or the other.

The GPL cannot set anything free, it is not a lifeform.  You as the
copyright holder are the ONLY possible entity that can set something
free.  A judge cannot order you to make something GPL, he can order
you to pay for damages, or similar.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[mike3]

On May 22, 1:54 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And therefore distributing them even separately through different
>channels is considered the same as distributing them as a
>whole. So, in other words, the following holds true: If I decide to
>use GPL code in my program, I am agreeing to "pay for the code"
>with my own code -- because then I am forced to release my own code
>as GPL as well.  I can't even release it under another "free"
>system, no, it must be UNDER THE GPL! What is the point of this?!
>
> To keep programs free.

Or, would it be rephrased as to *set* code free, because until
that GPL code got in there the code was NOT necessarily free
to begin with (standard copyright restrictions apply unless and
until the author waives them in a license, permission, etc.) but
once the author used the GPL code he/she is implicitly agreeing
to release the entirety of his/her program as free.

Because it doesn't just keep the GPL code free (distributing
only the GPL code any not the rest of the combined work would
still accomplish that) -- it leads to more code being free (the rest
of the combined work) that may not have been free to begin with.
If one doesn't want to set said code free then they shouldn't use
the GPL code.

That's the thing I've been driving at all this time -- because you
don't seem to see the difference between "keeping code free"
and "setting code free". The former implies already free code,
the latter implies code that was not free to begin with. GPL does
both. Not one or the other.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[John Hasler]

Bahadir writes:
> Are those kernel headers explicitly declared as "public interface"
> somewhere, or else how do you distinguish a "non-copyrightable public
> interface"?

It is not up to the author to determine whether or not a work or a portion
of a work is protected by copyright.  It depends on the law, which varies
with jurisdiction.  Under US law most (probably all) kernel headers would
not be protected by copyright.
-- 
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 question

[Bilgehan . Balban]

On May 15, 9:27 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bahadir writes:
> > I don't own the library implementation, but what about any instance of
> > symbols I use in my code?
>
> The symbols themselves are not protected by copyright at all.
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI USA

OK, also there is the concept of a "public interface", which does not
seem to be mentioned in the GNU FAQ. For example the linux kernel
headers are a "public interface", such that they are non-copyrightable
and userspace programs can use them and yet can have non-gnu licenses.
This is mentioned in:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/1297

Are those kernel headers explicitly declared as "public interface"
somewhere, or else how do you distinguish a "non-copyrightable public
interface"?

Thanks,
Bahadir

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   And therefore distributing them even separately through different
   channels is considered the same as distributing them as a
   whole. So, in other words, the following holds true: If I decide to
   use GPL code in my program, I am agreeing to "pay for the code"
   with my own code -- because then I am forced to release my own code
   as GPL as well.  I can't even release it under another "free"
   system, no, it must be UNDER THE GPL! What is the point of this?!

To keep programs free.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[mike3]

On May 21, 2:45 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What about if it does not "contain" the GPL program, ie. the two
>could be distributed separately and are not "fused"? Like if they
>occupy separate program files and there is no source code mixing,
>but the non-GPL one depends vitally on the GPL one?
>
> If it depends `vitally' on the GPL program, then they are fused by
> definition.

And therefore distributing them even separately through
different channels is considered the same as distributing
them as a whole. So, in other words, the following holds
true: If I decide to use GPL code in my program, I am
agreeing to "pay for the code" with my own code -- because
then I am forced to release my own code as GPL as well.
I can't even release it under another "free" system, no,
it must be UNDER THE GPL! What is the point of this?!
Is it because nothing is truly "free" in the sense of having
absolutely no cost, and thus to pay "compensation" to the
"free" software community for the work they did in creating
the software, it is done with one's own code? Of course if
I don't want to write free or GPL code, I don't have to -- I
just don't go and use the GPL code (or, I could try to negotiate
a more acceptable license with the author(s)), but is the
interpretation above right?


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   What about if it does not "contain" the GPL program, ie. the two
   could be distributed separately and are not "fused"? Like if they
   occupy separate program files and there is no source code mixing,
   but the non-GPL one depends vitally on the GPL one?

If it depends `vitally' on the GPL program, then they are fused by
definition.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[mike3]

On May 21, 7:42 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Although I'm not the asker of the question, this still brings to
>mind the dillemma I haven't quite settled for myself yet. What if,
>say, instead of dual-licensing the _entire work_, he (the asker of
>the original question) tweaked it so the _GPL parts_ could be
>distributed in the package *and also over a website or other
>free-availability source* _UNDER GPL_, while the 90% that is
>_ORIGINAL_ is licensed under proprietary or other non-GPL terms?
>
> The GPL Section 2(b): You must cause any work that you distribute or
> publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
> Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to
> all third parties under the terms of this License.

What about if it does not "contain" the GPL program, ie. the two
could be distributed separately and are not "fused"? Like if
they occupy separate program files and there is no source code
mixing, but the non-GPL one depends vitally on the GPL one?

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Although I'm not the asker of the question, this still brings to
   mind the dillemma I haven't quite settled for myself yet. What if,
   say, instead of dual-licensing the _entire work_, he (the asker of
   the original question) tweaked it so the _GPL parts_ could be
   distributed in the package *and also over a website or other
   free-availability source* _UNDER GPL_, while the 90% that is
   _ORIGINAL_ is licensed under proprietary or other non-GPL terms?

The GPL Section 2(b): You must cause any work that you distribute or
publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to
all third parties under the terms of this License.



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

[mike3]

On May 14, 4:18 pm, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Hi,
>
> > Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
> > own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright for
> > the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-trivial %90 of it. Can
> > I still dual license the project?
>
> You can't relicense the work of others under any license you like,
> period.  Regardless how much or little you add to it.
>
> If you want to have the definite say about how to license some work,
> make sure that you have the copyright to 100% of it.  If the 10% are
> so trivial and your licensing options are so important to you, that
> should be a small price to pay.
>

Although I'm not the asker of the question, this still brings to mind
the dillemma I haven't quite settled for myself yet. What if, say,
instead of dual-licensing the _entire work_, he (the asker of the
original question) tweaked it so the _GPL parts_ could be distributed
in the package *and also over a website or other free-availability
source* _UNDER GPL_, while the 90% that is _ORIGINAL_ is
licensed under proprietary or other non-GPL terms? Like this:

--- Complete Program:
Original program
GPL part
---

--- What is distributed in the retail package:
Original program -- under proprietary, non-free license or non-GPL
license

GPL part -- bundled in under GPL *and* also available on website or
other freely available source so it remains "free"
---

Would that be acceptable?

> --
> 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