Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping website), you don't have to GPL your modifications. Can anyone point me to an official statement on this by the FSF or another authority? The GUN General Public License has the offical statement about this. Notable section 3 of GPLv2. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
Rex writes: Do you mean this? Who is you? Are you replying to someone in particular? Hint: this is Usenet, not a forum. In other words, it wouldn't be OK to modify Emacs and allow people full remote use of it on my server without giving out the source, but it would be OK to modify MySQL so people can do simple searchbox queries through HTTP that query my customized database. Does that sound right? No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give copies of the binaries to. Allowing someone to run the software remotely does not involve giving them copies of anything. Therefor you do not need to supply copies of the Emacs source to people who run it remotely on your server. The same applies to MySQL or any other GPL software. Read the license. If you can't understand it consult an attorney. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] lawfully made, dispose of, possession. It is clear that this applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself. For those copies, your rights are restricted by the license. The GPL allows you distributing such copies _under_ _the_ _GPL_, _including_ the source code (or rights to it). Copyright law does not permit you to do any distribution of them without license. Hey dak, Lee Hollaar the author of http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html (I mean his treatise, not the Foreword written by the Chief Judge and the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee) told you several times in the past that your understanding of first sale is totally wrong. Here's what Lee Hollar who worked with the Chief Judge and the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Internet, copyright, and patent issues as a Committee Fellow had to say about the GNU legal nonsense version 3 (note that most of it applies to GNU legal nonsense version 2 as well). You are a practical joker. Do you even _read_ what you cite? Hollaar is here talking about the right to modify, not the right to copy. And certainly not about first sale. You're a real idiot. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/4d2438aa5d80f803 quote author=Hollaar In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. [quoting Eben Moglen] That might be true IF she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. But as I have pointed out here and in my comments to the FSF regarding the new GPLv3, that is not the case. United States copyright law provides a number of exceptions to the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, including first sale as covered in 17 U.S.C. 109 and the right in 17 U.S.C. 117 of the owner of a copy of a computer to reproduce or adapt it if necessary to use it. The convenient redefinition of things in the GPL reminds me of a quote from Abraham Lincoln: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. /quote regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
For the sake of nailing stupid dak once again... David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler wrote: [...] No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give copies of the binaries to. 17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy. lawfully made, dispose of, possession. It is clear that this applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself. [the license] HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476 (about 109): any resale of an illegally ''pirated'' phonorecord would be an infringement, but the disposition of a phonorecord legally made under the compulsory licensing provisions of section 115 would not. DMCA Section 104 Report: (ignoring Red Hat's concerns orticulated by Red Hat attorneys during testimony***) http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy disk, Zip™ disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109. ***) quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-2|3.pdf Red Hat, Inc.: Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109. The primary difference between digital and nondigital products with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded from the Internet without the printed documentation, without the box, and without the installation service. Many open source and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft. ... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would jeopardize the ability of open source and free software licensor to require [blah blah] Time Warner, Inc.: We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium. Library Associations: First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that provision must be construed in light of its basic purpose and should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion because of changing habits due to new inventions and discoveries. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property throughout society. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
John Hasler wrote: [...] No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give copies of the binaries to. 17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy. 106(3) is severely limited by the exception to 106(3) in section 109. The reason why 106(3) is listed in 106 is to provide legal basis to punish not only somebody who pirates works and who may not even try or want to distribute pirated copies, but also somebody who distributes pirated copies to the public that were unlawfully made by another. Now, GNUtians, you tell me how does that apply to the GPL (not-a-contract according to the FSF). Neither RMS nor Moglen can explain it. Perhaps you can. I doubt it. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:27:38 -0600, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rex writes: I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping website), you don't have to GPL your modifications. It's bloody well obvious. Read the license. Can anyone point me to an official statement on this by the FSF or another authority? Ask your lawyer. There was a lot of rhetoric about the FSF wanting to change this for GPLv3. I don't know if that happened, but somewhere in the FSF or RMS explanations of why they needed a new version of the GPL ought to be some pretty official discussion of this issue. I heard somewhere the the MySQL people had their own opinion about this. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
Anyone with the executable in their hands should have the right to the source code. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Running modified GPL software on a server
Hi, I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping website), you don't have to GPL your modifications. Can anyone point me to an official statement on this by the FSF or another authority? Thanks! Rex ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
Rex writes: I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping website), you don't have to GPL your modifications. It's bloody well obvious. Read the license. Can anyone point me to an official statement on this by the FSF or another authority? Ask your lawyer. -- 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
