Re: Aggregation.
Ross N. Williams wrote: Has anyone come up with clean simple language that resolves the ambiguity of the concept of "aggregation" in the GNU GPL? I haven't read one, but it's probably easier to think of this the other way around: aggregation is something you're allowed to do to two works where neither is derived from the other (provided, of course, that you have rights to redistribute each separately). I.e., the real question is what is a derived work. In many cases that is cut-and-dry, but in the case of programs that enable the creation of other programs, it is not uncommon to specify that certain classes of use are or are not considered derivations. For example Larry Wall felt moved to clarify its application in the case of PERL modules (some GPL, some not) that are shipped together as code to be executed as a whole. (He said that a module does not fall under the GPL unless it's author explicitly places it under the GPL). http://www.perl.com/pub/doc/manual/html/READMEs/README This may make sense because he feels that extensibility (e.g., the right to write a new module) is a feature of Perl. He also allows Perl to be embedded in a non-GPL program, which is usually something that LGPL would be a more appropriate license for. However, he also dual licenses Perl, so that the user may choose the Artistic License instead of GPL, which renders the meaning of GPL moot in some cases where the user may be acting contrary to FSF's intent behind GPL. Clearly, shipping code on a disk side by side is mere aggregation, but it gets messier when you have interpreted languages and so on. At what point of integration do two works become part of a whole? Don't want to reinvent the wheel. Has anyone got some language for me? I don't have language for you, but I've been down this road before, so have some suggestions: -- Explicitly permit the user to do whatever it is that you think the user should be allowed to do without generating a work that you feel entitled to lay some claim on as a derived work. For example: You may write scripts in XXX and license them using any license of your choice. -- Don't say anything that may be construed as an interpretation of what GPL means. Interpretation is something for the courts to do, and FSF doesn't want you, me, or anyone else to muddy the waters. Ross. Dr Ross N. Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), +61 8 8232-6262 (fax-6264). Director, Rocksoft Pty Ltd, Adelaide, Australia: http://www.rocksoft.com/ Protect your files with Veracity data integrity: http://www.veracity.com/ -- /* * Tom Hull -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.ocston.org/~thull */
Re: The different between GPL and non-license
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 12:37:29PM +0700, Kristiono Setyadi wrote: I want to ask about the different between GPL with non-license. I think that GPL and non-license is the same. Both of them are distribute to anyone. Is my opinion true or false? Thank you. If you mean the distinction between the GNU GPL and public domain, no they aren't the same. Any license in which copyright is retained reserves rights to the author. Placing a work in the public domain releases virtually all rights of authorship (excepting possibly "moral rights" depending on jurisdiction). The GPL allows broad lattitude in use of code, but imposes restrictions. There are few if any restrictions on use of public domain works. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Public Domain and liability
One reason people don't often release software to the public domain is fear of liability. The concern is that even if you place a disclaimer on the software, someone could legally distribute your software without the disclaimer. Then, if the software fails in some way, you could be sued as the manufacturer of defective software. Now, to me, this sounds crazy. However, I'm not a lawyer, and often legal decisions leave me amazed. Has anyone ever been sued, especially successfully, for a non-malicious public domain program? Does anyone have any comment on whether this is likely to happen? --- Blake Cretney
Re: Compulsory checkin clauses.
On Sat, 5 Aug 2000, Justin Wells wrote: How about releasing a modification to a GPL'd program which contains no material from the original? Recipients of the modification can "privately" apply it to their GPL'd works, while the authors of the modification can claim that it is not covered by the GPL because it is not a derived work. I brought up this point last year (I think) under the title "How to break the GPL". The trouble is, according to some of the lawyers on this list, that establishing copyright in a patch is very unlikely, since there tends to be a form/content merger (if there is basically only one way to express something, the form in which it is expressed cannot be copyrighted, at least in the U.S., as that would create rights over the content as well). So a proprietary patch to a free program probably won't fly. For example, a GPL'd program contains a file called 'foo.c' among its source code. I write a brand new 'foo.c' containing no material from the original, but compatibly conforming to its API, and release that under some proprietary license. I include a build script which copies my foo.c over top of the original and conveniently builds the modified version for the people who purchased my foo.c from me. This is a stronger case, because "foo" is a genuine module with an exposed API. (Of course, you have to have read only the API documentation, not "foo.c", to have any hope of being clean-room.) If a module] has a released API, I don't see that there's any hope of preventing people from replacing it by another module. Anyway, is that really so bad? Is there some reason why Random Users, Inc. *must* link their GPLed programs against either the operating system libc or glibc? Why should RUI be forbidden to link the program with Fred Foobar's Very Fast Proprietary Assembly Language Version Of strstr(), which just happens to be called in the inner loop of your GPL program? RUI benefits from paying Fred Foobar, but nobody else is *injured* by this, unless RUI distributes their binary, which they cannot do under the GPL. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux, de rapport nyait pas. -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"
RE: Public Domain and liability
I am unsure how this can happen, if we are referring to "public domain" as that term is used in copyright. Works are not generally *released* to the public domain since the public domain describes that status of a work as a matter of law. In this respect, public domain works are not "owned" by anyone, they belong to the public. Hence, unless an individual believes he can file suit against the public, there is no one to sue for injuries from public domain works. Strictly speaking, this discussion is theoretical since I know of no public domain works that are software programs. (This is not to say that there is not any source code in the public domain). Rod -Original Message- From: Blake Cretney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 4:01 PM To: License Discuss Subject: Public Domain and liability One reason people don't often release software to the public domain is fear of liability. The concern is that even if you place a disclaimer on the software, someone could legally distribute your software without the disclaimer. Then, if the software fails in some way, you could be sued as the manufacturer of defective software. Now, to me, this sounds crazy. However, I'm not a lawyer, and often legal decisions leave me amazed. Has anyone ever been sued, especially successfully, for a non-malicious public domain program? Does anyone have any comment on whether this is likely to happen? --- Blake Cretney
RE: Public Domain and liability
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: Strictly speaking, this discussion is theoretical since I know of no public domain works that are software programs. (This is not to say that there is not any source code in the public domain). Software programs written by U.S. government employees within the scope of their employment are surely in the public domain. For example, see the software programs linked to http://mapping.usgs.gov/www/products/software.html . As a specific example, http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/pub/tools/misc/reform.c is the source code for a public-domain program (though not explicitly dedicated to the public domain within the code itself). -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux, de rapport nyait pas. -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"
Re: Compulsory checkin clauses.
At 5:05 PM -0400 8/7/00, John Cowan wrote: There is a cost to keeping your patches under wraps, though, either out of competitiveness or parsimony: you will have to reintegrate the patch into the next release, and the next, and the next Very quickly you get sick of this and make the patch available to the owner/maintainer so that you get it back for free in all future releases. Don't get me started on THAT road... ;-) D
No such thing as GPL for Java (was Re: Compulsory checkin clauses.)
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 05:33:45PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: For example, a GPL'd program contains a file called 'foo.c' among its source code. I write a brand new 'foo.c' containing no material from the original, but compatibly conforming to its API, and release that under some proprietary license. I include a build script which copies my foo.c over top of the original and conveniently builds the modified version for the people who purchased my foo.c from me. This is a stronger case, because "foo" is a genuine module with an exposed API. (Of course, you have to have read only the API documentation, not "foo.c", to have any hope of being clean-room.) If a module] has a released API, I don't see that there's any hope of preventing people from replacing it by another module. This example is particularly relevant to me. I worded it above in terms of the C langauge because everyone is familiar with that--but really what worries me is Java. Java has no concept of static linking--everything is linked at runtime, and almost every class has a well published API thanks to "javadoc", which runs over the code and translates comments into an HTML documentation page. So every GPL'd Java program is susceptible to this: just rewrite a class and ship it in "binary" (.class) format only. It won't be linked with the program until runtime so you haven't distributed a derived work. For Java developers using the GPL is effectively the same as using LGPL. Justin
RE: Public Domain and liability
Good point, John. I was thinking more in terms of works being "released to the public domain" by expiration of copyright or some other operation of law. You are exactly correct. The federal government cannot claim copyright to its own works so those works are public domain works at their inception under copyright law (one caution: a patent may be obtained). As a practical matter and aside from military or national security uses, the Federal government acts as a market player (rather than a software developer) so the vast majority of software programs used by or created for the Federal government are works licensed to the government from private sector sources and university research. Of course, these works usually do not by operation of law immediately become public domain works. Rod -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 7:58 PM To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; License Discuss Subject: RE: Public Domain and liability On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: Strictly speaking, this discussion is theoretical since I know of no public domain works that are software programs. (This is not to say that there is not any source code in the public domain). Software programs written by U.S. government employees within the scope of their employment are surely in the public domain. For example, see the software programs linked to http://mapping.usgs.gov/www/products/software.html . As a specific example, http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/pub/tools/misc/reform.c is the source code for a public-domain program (though not explicitly dedicated to the public domain within the code itself). -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux, de rapport nyait pas. -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"
Re: Public Domain and liability
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 01:01:07PM -0700, Blake Cretney wrote: One reason people don't often release software to the public domain is fear of liability. The concern is that even if you place a disclaimer on the software, someone could legally distribute your software without the disclaimer. Then, if the software fails in some way, you could be sued as the manufacturer of defective software. Now, to me, this sounds crazy. However, I'm not a lawyer, and often legal decisions leave me amazed. Has anyone ever been sued, especially successfully, for a non-malicious public domain program? Does anyone have any comment on whether this is likely to happen? I believe we can move this into the realm of copyrighted but publicly distributed works if we consider books which describe inherently dangerous practices for which there might be liability attached. Examples which come to mind: anything dealing with explosives or flammables, particularly "cookbooks" describing how to produce such materials. There's _The Anarchist's Cookbook_, written by William Powell and published by L. Stuart, 1971. A euthenasia book giving methods for suicide or assisted death made the headlines a few years back, _Final Exit_ by Humphry Derek, published by the Hemlock Society, 1991. The University of California online catalog lists another sixty or so titles. There are several instances of parents seeking legal redress against rock and roll bands or stars for songs or albums which were thought to have contributed to actions of children. Maralyn Manson comes to mind though a quick web search doesn't turn up any plausible mentions of him in law suits. I'd say there's a body of case law and examples which should at least provide grist for the mill here. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Does linux use GPL or not??
I still confused with this GPL or non-GPL. First, I want to ask about Linux. Does Linux use a GPL or not? If someone distributed it (Linux, I mean..) with no GPL, can we called this a crime? I am sorry if I can not follow this subject of mailing list. But I really want to know about the GPL and its friends.. (indeed..). Thank you. -- "La vraie definition de la science, c'est qu'elle est l'etude de la beaute du monde" --
Re: Does linux use GPL or not??
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, Kristiono Setyadi wrote: I still confused with this GPL or non-GPL. First, I want to ask about Linux. Does Linux use a GPL or not? Yes (sort of). Linus Torvalds licenses the kernel under the GPL. However, he also includes a statement that it is permissable to link to kernel routines from non-GPL programs. Thus it is a slightly modified GPL. So it is rather like the LGPL in some ways. If someone distributed it (Linux, I mean..) with no GPL, can we called this a crime? If you modified the kernel and distributed it under a different license, you will get in serious trouble. It is not a crime exactly, but a copyright violation. When you go to court it will be to a civil court not a criminal court. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Does linux use GPL or not??
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote: If you modified the kernel and distributed it under a different license, you will get in serious trouble. It is not a crime exactly, but a copyright violation. When you go to court it will be to a civil court not a criminal court. What about the other version of Linux (like RedHat, Slackware, etc.)? Can we say that the Kernel of the Linux have been changed? In some countries, the copyright is some of the most frequently violated. Most of the microsoft (and other commercial software..) are pirated. Have you heard about Linux pirated?? Thank you. -- "La vraie definition de la science, c'est qu'elle est l'etude de la beaute du monde" --
StarOffice under the GPL ?
I heard and read about Sun will release the source of StarOffice suite in october. Someone know that is truth ? What you think about ? This step will make SOffice better ? faster like Netscape, when the source was freely ? I think that change will shake like a hurricane with other companies and her suites, more than when Sun buys StarDivision. PS. Please i'm sorry about my english. Ricardo Petruzza. (Brazil)
Re: StarOffice under the GPL ?
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, petruzza wrote: I heard and read about Sun will release the source of StarOffice suite in october. Someone know that is truth ? What you think about ? You should ask to the Sun for this. If it is true, I think it will be the better for the open-source software industry. This step will make SOffice better ? faster like Netscape, when the source was freely ? I think that you should waiting for that. No one can give the exact value of the pre-released program or software until they try it. -- "La vraie definition de la science, c'est qu'elle est l'etude de la beaute du monde" --
Re: StarOffice under the GPL ?
Kristiono Setyadi wrote: You should ask to the Sun for this. If you have time, take a look: http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2000-07/sunflash.2719.1.html I think that i'm right, but i am thinking about if Sun will "wash her hands" freeing the source, because the source was not "good yet" to be a Sun software, and then freeing the software, an army of developers will fix it ? Ricardo Petruzza (Brazil)
Re: Does linux use GPL or not??
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, Kristiono Setyadi wrote: On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote: If you modified the kernel and distributed it under a different license, you will get in serious trouble. It is not a crime exactly, but a copyright violation. When you go to court it will be to a civil court not a criminal court. What about the other version of Linux (like RedHat, Slackware, etc.)? Can we say that the Kernel of the Linux have been changed? All of the different Linux distributions use the same kernel. Some will use different patches or modifications that the others don't, but all of these patches are also under the GPL. So far, the kernel has not forked, and I doubt that it will unless there is a technical reason to do so. In some countries, the copyright is some of the most frequently violated. Most of the microsoft (and other commercial software..) are pirated. Have you heard about Linux pirated?? There is no point in pirating Linux. It is already free with no cost. There is nothing wrong with purchasing a $80 boxed set of Redhat and making a million copies of it, selling them for $1 each. There may be a trademark violation if these copies are sold as "official" Redhat distributions, but there is still very little reason to do this. Overall, there is very little incentive to pirate Linux. It is a completely different class of software than Windows. As I like to say, "you can't steal what is free". -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
