Re: How To Break The GPL
"Why should we care how the laws against robbery are drafted? If Alice doesn't care, at least we should care. The point I wanted to make (not clear enough as it seems) is that a license is only part of protecting the GPL source base. The license by itself will probably not be enough to do the job, no matter what wording you use. There has to be someone or some organization behind it, and for that reason its good to have RMS and the FSF, despite of some harsh and sometimes "radical" statements. Another candidate could be RedHat, they seem to be financially strong enough to enforce a lawsuit in case of need. And they are present globally (more or less). Though I don't know if they want to get involved in something like this... Most robbers are never captured." This by itself doesn't mean that robbery is acceptable, IMHO. ---Csaba Szigetvári
Re: Looking to learn more about EXCEPTIONS -- gnu style
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, David Johnson wrote: The GNU compilers have exceptions, but as I understand it, they're only there to placate some fears. I seem to recall some early rumours that compiling your programs with a GPL compiler would cause the output to be under the GPL. This is patently false, as the GPL already excepts the output of most programs, including gcc. Nevertheless, the fear was there so the exception was added. Actually, I recall a similar problem with flex (or was it bison?). They make use of skeleton files which were GPLed, and which appeared verbatim (plus the generated code) in the program's output. I don't know if there was a similar situation with gcc, but it seems a reasonable concern to me. -- Patrick Doyle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking to learn more about EXCEPTIONS -- gnu style
Patrick Doyle wrote: Actually, I recall a similar problem with flex (or was it bison?). They make use of skeleton files which were GPLed, and which appeared verbatim (plus the generated code) in the program's output. Bison. But this is no longer true. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Re: Looking to learn more about EXCEPTIONS -- gnu style
David Johnson wrote: I still wonder why the Linux kernel is GPL+exception, instead of being LGPL. Can anyone shed light on this? Was the LGPL available when Linux was put under the GPL? Since GPL extends coverage to whole works, Linux uses the GPL to ensure that all kernel drivers/modules are GPL-clean. It is a big advantage for Linux to have all of the drivers and modules in source form. Had LGPL been used, it would be possible for someone to build a new non-free kernel using some/all of the Linux kernel as subroutines. Note that the exception does not extend to kernel modules, even though they could be considered "normal use", given that they work through defined interfaces. The exact wording is "user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls". According to Linus from an interview, the exception is there so that programs can make kernel calls without falling under the GPL. Without it, one could argue that *every* program running under Linux would be a derivative of the kernel and thus have to be GPLd. This would have killed Linux before it got a foot off of the ground. If every user level program had to be GPL in order to run on Linux, that would either preclude use of or require relicensing of all sorts of important pieces, including glibc and xfree86. Glibc is especially interesting, in that almost all user programs access the kernel through it. -- /* * Tom Hull -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.ocston.org/~thull */
Should governmnet software be Open Source?
Here is a question I'd like to get some thoughts on... Should software written by our government be Open Source? After all, we pay for it. I think we be given the opportunity to find new and creative uses for it. I think open sourcing this software could also serve to make government more accountable. Take for instance the software that determines who gets Social Security, how much $$ they get, and then prints the checks. If this software was open source, a watch-dog group could review that code and verify that the government was making payments according to the rules. (What about the software the IRS uses to select tax returns for audits?) A local or state government agency that pays Workman Comp benefits could take relevant portions from the Social Security check software and apply it to their system, potentially saving tax payers money on the cost of development. What about military software? Would national security be compromised if the software for the guidance system of an ICBM was open source? Could a tax paying corporation like Boeing make use of such software in civilian projects? What are your thoughts?
Re: Should governmnet software be Open Source?
Government-written and government-contracted software is NOT Open Source, but it IS Public Domain. Knowing the differences is left as an exercise for the reader, but if you want the source code, a FOIA request would probably turn it up for you in short order. D At 10:17 AM 3/8/00 -0800, Brice, Richard wrote: Here is a question I'd like to get some thoughts on... Should software written by our government be Open Source? After all, we pay for it. I think we be given the opportunity to find new and creative uses for it. I think open sourcing this software could also serve to make government more accountable. Take for instance the software that determines who gets Social Security, how much $$ they get, and then prints the checks. If this software was open source, a watch-dog group could review that code and verify that the government was making payments according to the rules. (What about the software the IRS uses to select tax returns for audits?) A local or state government agency that pays Workman Comp benefits could take relevant portions from the Social Security check software and apply it to their system, potentially saving tax payers money on the cost of development. What about military software? Would national security be compromised if the software for the guidance system of an ICBM was open source? Could a tax paying corporation like Boeing make use of such software in civilian projects? What are your thoughts?
RE: Should governmnet software be Open Source?
Public domain and Open Source are not the same thing... No problem with that. However, I've seen government agencies exercise their right to copyright material (at least I assume it is their right because it is done frequently). As a specific example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has written some bridge design software that they refuse to share the source code and charge non-government agencies upwards of $1500 per copy for the executables. Please refer to sections 4 and 5 of their license agreement as it asserts their copyright and position of ownership(ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/Englicpackage.pdf) ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/Englicpackage.pdf) . Assuming I am correct, and government agencies have the right to copyright software and distribute it with what ever license agreement they choose, I would contend that the software should be distributed under the terms and conditions of an open source license. Public domain is a legal term that means "not copyrighted". Anyone can take public domain software, tweak it, call it their own, and copyright it. From that point on, the software might not be "free" at all. If government wants to provide the maximum benefit of its assets to its citizens, then an Open Source license is the only way to go. Once a private individual or company copyrights and restricts the use and further distribution of software that was originally created by government, the remaining citizens are denied the maximum benefit of their investment. -Original Message- From: Derek J. Balling [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 10:26 AM To: Brice, Richard; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject:Re: Should governmnet software be Open Source? Government-written and government-contracted software is NOT Open Source, but it IS Public Domain. Knowing the differences is left as an exercise for the reader, but if you want the source code, a FOIA request would probably turn it up for you in short order. D At 10:17 AM 3/8/00 -0800, Brice, Richard wrote: Here is a question I'd like to get some thoughts on... Should software written by our government be Open Source? After all, we pay for it. I think we be given the opportunity to find new and creative uses for it. I think open sourcing this software could also serve to make government more accountable. Take for instance the software that determines who gets Social Security, how much $$ they get, and then prints the checks. If this software was open source, a watch-dog group could review that code and verify that the government was making payments according to the rules. (What about the software the IRS uses to select tax returns for audits?) A local or state government agency that pays Workman Comp benefits could take relevant portions from the Social Security check software and apply it to their system, potentially saving tax payers money on the cost of development. What about military software? Would national security be compromised if the software for the guidance system of an ICBM was open source? Could a tax paying corporation like Boeing make use of such software in civilian projects? What are your thoughts?
RE: Should governmnet software be Open Source?
At 10:52 AM 3/8/00 -0800, Brice, Richard wrote: Public domain and Open Source are not the same thing... No problem with that. However, I've seen government agencies exercise their right to copyright material (at least I assume it is their right because it is done frequently). It would be interesting to challenge the copyright. :) As far as I knew, the government didn't have any ability to DO that. As a specific example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has written some bridge design software that they refuse to share the source code and charge non-government agencies upwards of $1500 per copy for the executables. Please refer to sections 4 and 5 of their license agreement as it asserts their copyright and position of ownership(ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/Englicpackage.pdf) ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/Englicpackage.pdf) . I don't know about State gov't's, but I'm almost positive the US gov't can't do things like that. Considering that the code is paid for by tax dollars, I would suspect an FOIA request would still yield the source code, since it IS public property. Public domain is a legal term that means "not copyrighted". Anyone can take public domain software, tweak it, call it their own, and copyright it. From that point on, the software might not be "free" at all. If government wants to provide the maximum benefit of its assets to its citizens, then an Open Source license is the only way to go. Once a private individual or company copyrights and restricts the use and further distribution of software that was originally created by government, the remaining citizens are denied the maximum benefit of their investment. Open Source requires the ability to copyright and "protect" the data, which to my recollection the US gov't at least cannot do. To use your example, let's say the gov't create Widget-Software-1.0, which does something "neat". Evil-Company (located in a Seattle suburb) gets WS1.0 and tries to copyright it. They CAN'T copyright 1.0, it's already in the public domain. They can take it, tweak it a little, call it 1.1, and copyright THAT all they want. That's their legal right. They have taken what their/your/my tax dollars paid for and modified it to their needs. The changed version has THEIR modifications, which they are free to deny you. You can still obtain the original 1.0 "from the source" and do whatever you like with it (possible creating a more open version of 1.1 to compete with Evil-Company's product). D
RE: Should governmnet software be Open Source?
I would contend that if any level or branch of government has the right to copyright software, then it is in the best interest of the public to use an open source license. I say this for all the same reasons one might prefer to use GPL over not-copyrighting. The benefits of an open source license are greater than public domain. As a tax payer, I want to maximize my investment in this nation. If Evil-company makes something I own better, I want access to the better version so my employees (civil servants) can then make it better to better serve me and my fellow investor. Slightly off topic, where would one go about making and FOIA request... And one last thing... I should have said this up front... I am employed by the government of the State of Washington. I am a strong proponent of Open Source Software for government. I develop bridge engineering software, and have applied an Open Source license to it. I thought that info might be relevant or at least give you a better picture of where I'm coming from. -Original Message- From: Derek J. Balling [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 11:05 AM To: Brice, Richard Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject:RE: Should governmnet software be Open Source? At 10:52 AM 3/8/00 -0800, Brice, Richard wrote: Public domain and Open Source are not the same thing... No problem with that. However, I've seen government agencies exercise their right to copyright material (at least I assume it is their right because it is done frequently). It would be interesting to challenge the copyright. :) As far as I knew, the government didn't have any ability to DO that. As a specific example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has written some bridge design software that they refuse to share the source code and charge non-government agencies upwards of $1500 per copy for the executables. Please refer to sections 4 and 5 of their license agreement as it asserts their copyright and position of ownership(ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/Englicpackage.pdf) ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/Englicpackage.pdf) . I don't know about State gov't's, but I'm almost positive the US gov't can't do things like that. Considering that the code is paid for by tax dollars, I would suspect an FOIA request would still yield the source code, since it IS public property. Public domain is a legal term that means "not copyrighted". Anyone can take public domain software, tweak it, call it their own, and copyright it. From that point on, the software might not be "free" at all. If government wants to provide the maximum benefit of its assets to its citizens, then an Open Source license is the only way to go. Once a private individual or company copyrights and restricts the use and further distribution of software that was originally created by government, the remaining citizens are denied the maximum benefit of their investment. Open Source requires the ability to copyright and "protect" the data, which to my recollection the US gov't at least cannot do. To use your example, let's say the gov't create Widget-Software-1.0, which does something "neat". Evil-Company (located in a Seattle suburb) gets WS1.0 and tries to copyright it. They CAN'T copyright 1.0, it's already in the public domain. They can take it, tweak it a little, call it 1.1, and copyright THAT all they want. That's their legal right. They have taken what their/your/my tax dollars paid for and modified it to their needs. The changed version has THEIR modifications, which they are free to deny you. You can still obtain the original 1.0 "from the source" and do whatever you like with it (possible creating a more open version of 1.1 to compete with Evil-Company's product). D
Re: Should governmnet software be Open Source?
Derek J. Balling writes: At 10:52 AM 3/8/00 -0800, Brice, Richard wrote: Public domain and Open Source are not the same thing... No problem with that. But public domain is one form of Open Source; see below. As a specific example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has written some bridge design software that they refuse to share the source code and charge non-government agencies upwards of $1500 per copy for the executables. Please refer to sections 4 and 5 of their license agreement as it asserts their copyright and position of ownership(ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/Englicpackage.pdf) ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/Englicpackage.pdf) . I don't know about State gov't's, but I'm almost positive the US gov't can't do things like that. Well, the Regents of the University of California, a public corporation of the State of California, certainly hold a lot of copyrights. Public domain is a legal term that means "not copyrighted". Anyone can take public domain software, tweak it, call it their own, and copyright it. From that point on, the software might not be "free" at all. If government wants to provide the maximum benefit of its assets to its citizens, then an Open Source license is the only way to go. Once a private individual or company copyrights and restricts the use and further distribution of software that was originally created by government, the remaining citizens are denied the maximum benefit of their investment. I think you are confusing Open Source with copyleft; there are lots of Open Source licenses which are not copyleft licenses, such as the BSD license. The argument that government agencies should use a copyleft license is a difficult one; copyleft is an activist tactic which might not be very patable to governments. Open Source requires the ability to copyright and "protect" the data, which to my recollection the US gov't at least cannot do. To use your example, let's say the gov't create Widget-Software-1.0, which does something "neat". Evil-Company (located in a Seattle suburb) gets WS1.0 and tries to copyright it. They CAN'T copyright 1.0, it's already in the public domain. They can take it, tweak it a little, call it 1.1, and copyright THAT all they want. That's their legal right. They have taken what their/your/my tax dollars paid for and modified it to their needs. The changed version has THEIR modifications, which they are free to deny you. You can still obtain the original 1.0 "from the source" and do whatever you like with it (possible creating a more open version of 1.1 to compete with Evil-Company's product). Since last year the OSI has accepted source code in the public domain as Open Source. Free software has existed longer than statutory recognition of copyright in computer programs. Proprietary software was originally treated as a trade secret (which is how I wish it were still treated, but the law has changed dramatically); presumably, at that time, _all_ free software was in the public domain. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Novell license revision
The enclosed Novell license revision is submitted for OSI approval and public discussion. Thanks Bruce Perens Novell.pdf
Is it possible to sue infringers under the GPL?
A big problem with the GPL, and other OSS licenses, is that very few people have standing to press a complaint. If someone violate's a GPL license, only the author of the software has the right to press the complaint (or so I think, and I am not a lawyer). Worse, if there are multiple authors, you probably need a majority of them present to press the complaint. How do you find out who the authors of an OSS project are, and how on earth would you track down a majority of them? This doesn't bode well for OSS projects that are developed by someone who has since vanished, and are now maintained by someone else. In my SPL, which I am *still* working on, I have this clause: For the sole purpose of taking action against an infringer of our copyrights, including actions seeking remedies, compensation, or the recovery of damages, anyone engaged in the lawful distribution of our software shall be considered a beneficial owner of the rights to copy and distribute it, and therefore has the authority to pursue such actions. The goal here is to give someone like Red Hat the standing to press a claim against a violator, even if the original author has vanished from the face of the earth. The copyright act (in the US) has some similar language granting television broadcasters "beneficial owner" status so they can go after pirates in their broadcast area, without having to track down the copyright owners. Any comments? Is this viable? Does it give the distributor enough power to subvert the license? Does it give them enough standing to go after an infringer in court? The full text of the current SPL is here, and I would appreciate other comments on it: http://shimari.com/SPL/ But at the moment I am particularly interested in this beneficial owner idea. Justin
Re: Novell license revision
Bruce Perens wrote: The enclosed Novell license revision is submitted for OSI approval and public discussion. Thanks for posting this license. It's interesting, and fairly clearly Open Source. I'm not clear on the actual intent of the license, however. It seems like it is meant to be GNU-style viral: any work containing parts licensed under the NCL must be entirely licensed under the NPL. If that is the intent, then an exception should probably be created for the GNU GPL so that the licenses are mutually compatible. (The GNU GPL does not exclude this license, as far as I can tell.) OTOH, if it is really BSD-ish, then it should say so. As far as I can tell from reading it, releasing a binary containing unmodified NCLed code (e.g. an NCLed library) plus restrictively licensed code can be accompanied by (an offer of) a source-code library of merely the NCLed parts. The full source of such a program is a mere collection, not a derivative work as such, so the NCL does not automatically extend to it. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Re: Should governmnet software be Open Source?
Is anyone familiar with the IRS's effort to create free (as in beer) tax software? As I recall, Congress shut this project down at the behest of Intuit, et al. The argument was the same as that often made against the USPS, government intrusion in the market space of what would otherwise be a profitable private enterprise. This position would seem to be very much a hinderence to the adoption/creation of free (as in freedom) software as well by the gov't. Rick Dietz
Re: Should governmnet software be Open Source?
At 04:13 PM 3/8/00 -0500, Rick B. Dietz wrote: The issue to the IRS was not that it was competing with commercial services, rather it was making interaction with an existing government beaurocracy easier for citizens for nothing over the internet. Intuit was saying, wait a second, we like this ugly bureaucratic mess just the way it is because we profit from it as an unneccessary middleman. You seem to suggest that a bureaucracy such as the IRS should not try to improve its services in light of advances in technology. That is an argument for greater centralization, inefficiency and stagnation. No, but making taxes available to be done over the net is NOT what you said, you said they were going to provide software to do it. My contention there was "which platforms will the software run on, and more importantly, which platforms will not be 'officially sanctioned for doing your taxes on'?" If we're talking about something in a web page, that's a whole 'nuther story. My main point is that Opensourcing gov't software will likely have the same impact as the gov't making software freely (0$) available. It will improve gov't services and efficiency and threaten private interests which profit from the bloated and less than user friendly interface our institutions currently present. If it threatens private interests with enough cash, opensource in gov't software won't happen. Your argument seems to go something like "These guys profit on the bloat, so why not let the gov't make some software that will put the bloat-abusers out of business." I would argue that idea is fundamentally flawed. You SHOULD be arguing: "Get rid of the bloated system and replace it with a non-bloated system." The government should not be competing with businesses just for the sake of competing with them. Where is the direct value to the taxpayer if additional tax dollars are spent developing and supporting tax-software that will create no extra revenue (to be potentially self-sufficient)? If you release that open-source, how do you train your support people to recognize the "pure" IRS version versus the one that Joe Geek hacked up and compiled himself (to make it BETTER, of course!), and do you incur extra costs trying to support every hacked version out there? Two words: Logistical nightmare. This is a case where the private sector and closed-source are a better solution (IMHO). D
Re: Should governmnet software be Open Source?
Derek J. Balling writes: At 11:37 AM 3/8/00 -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: At 10:52 AM 3/8/00 -0800, Brice, Richard wrote: Public domain and Open Source are not the same thing... No problem with that. But public domain is one form of Open Source; see below. Fair enough, BUT, I think the discussion was centering around "using some open source license" and "releasing it into Public Domain". Public Domain allows end-users FAR greater lee-way (they can close the source on their forked-tree if they like and go private) than a conventional Open Source License would do. Conventional wisdom is that you can do that with licenses like the BSD license and MIT license. I've heard that disputed recently, but this was at least the traditional interpretation upon which several vendors have relied. Well, the Regents of the University of California, a public corporation of the State of California, certainly hold a lot of copyrights. Either (a) they shouldn't be allowed to do that with taxpayer-funded works, or (b) all it takes is for someone with money,balls,time,energy to tell them to get stuffed and dare them to fight it in court. :) I'll look into that sometime. I think you are confusing Open Source with copyleft; there are lots of Open Source licenses which are not copyleft licenses, such as the BSD license. The problem is that it is a LICENSE at all. Using gov't-funded software is not something the gov't CAN[1] license. It's a right you have, since you paid for it. You can't license a right. I have the right to do what I want with gov't code, whether that be closed it, open it, sell copies of it verbatim, what-have-you. For the gov't to have a License, then you (a) cannot use it if you are a minor, since you cannot legally agree to the license, and (b) you have to agree to terms and conditions. There are no acceptable terms and conditions for using taxpayer-funded code. This is a difficult argument; after all, paying taxes does not allow you to attend a public university without being admitted, nor to enter government buildings and offices or military bases. Unless you know of the "Do Anything" license, which has OSI approval which says "You can download this code from me and literally do whatever you want with it. This is MY code, but you can do whatever floats your boat with it." Well, I once wrote the "World's Shortest Open Source License", but it's never been certified by anyone. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Re: Is it possible to sue infringers under the GPL?
Justin Wells writes: A big problem with the GPL, and other OSS licenses, is that very few people have standing to press a complaint. If someone violate's a GPL license, only the author of the software has the right to press the complaint (or so I think, and I am not a lawyer). Worse, if there are multiple authors, you probably need a majority of them present to press the complaint. How do you find out who the authors of an OSS project are, and how on earth would you track down a majority of them? I'm just curious why you need a majority. In the absence of some agreement between developers about the disposition of the copyright, isn't a GPLed work normally copyrighted in part by each of its contributors? In my SPL, which I am *still* working on, I have this clause: For the sole purpose of taking action against an infringer of our copyrights, including actions seeking remedies, compensation, or the recovery of damages, anyone engaged in the lawful distribution of our software shall be considered a beneficial owner of the rights to copy and distribute it, and therefore has the authority to pursue such actions. The goal here is to give someone like Red Hat the standing to press a claim against a violator, even if the original author has vanished from the face of the earth. The copyright act (in the US) has some similar language granting television broadcasters "beneficial owner" status so they can go after pirates in their broadcast area, without having to track down the copyright owners. Isn't that ownership granted by law? If it weren't granted by law, could you create such a thing simply by publishing that statement in a license? -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Re: Should governmnet software be Open Source?
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: This is a difficult argument; after all, paying taxes does not allow you to attend a public university without being admitted, nor to enter government buildings and offices or military bases. I think the difference here is precisely that software isn't scarce. I don't _own_ the post office even though my taxes paid for it, because everyone's taxes paid for it and we can't all own it. We _can_ all own a piece of software. That's why I think keeping it in public domain is sensible.
Re: Should governmnet software be Open Source?
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000, Brice, Richard wrote: Here is a question I'd like to get some thoughts on... Should software written by our government be Open Source? After all, we pay for it. I think we be given the opportunity to find new and creative uses for it. Of course! And more than that, it should be Public Domain! At the minimum, it should have an unrestricted license like MIT or BSD. I would strongly disagree with the GPL for the simple reason that Microsoft and Sun have to pay taxes as well, so don't restrict their usage of it. However, I would disagree with the government funding or mandating open source. I don't feel that it is their role to determine or influence the development models used by the software industry. -- David Johnson... _ http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
Re: Looking to learn more about EXCEPTIONS -- gnu style
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000, Patrick Doyle wrote: Actually, I recall a similar problem with flex (or was it bison?). They make use of skeleton files which were GPLed, and which appeared verbatim (plus the generated code) in the program's output. There is a similar problem with KDevelop. The skeleton KDE and Qt applications have GPL headers on them. However, the created template applications are NOT under the GPL. The manual clarifies this a bit, but I can see a lot of confusion over it. I wonder how many newbies learning Qt programming on KDevelop think that they *have* to use the GPL? -- David Johnson... _ http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
Re: Is it possible to sue infringers under the GPL?
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: Worse, if there are multiple authors, you probably need a majority of them present to press the complaint. How do you find out who the authors of an OSS project are, and how on earth would you track down a majority of them? I'm just curious why you need a majority. In the absence of some agreement between developers about the disposition of the copyright, isn't a GPLed work normally copyrighted in part by each of its contributors? Ouch! Is that how people view Open Source modifications? It's a wonder development even occurs. As I see it, if you submit a patch to my application, and say that is what it is, that patch falls under my copyright. You still have full rights to it outside of my application, but once it's included with your permission, the whole is still mine. But I can see where the opposite viewpoint is also valid. So, are contributors automatically copyright holders? -- David Johnson... _ http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
