Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-17 Thread tom_gordon
It was my response to the phase "IANAL" interpreted as "I am anal" minus 
the verb.  So it would be the latter (extemely retentive) to produce the 
appearence of ignorance of the acronym on my part.

Tom




Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: 
Subject:    Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

Now this thread has confused me.  What is XOR an acronym for?

Tom, does the phrase "YOUR ANAL"  translates to "you are not a lawyer", 
or "you are extremely retentive?"

--scott

___
LUAU mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/luau





Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-17 Thread R.Scott Belford

On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 10:08 AM, Gary Dunn wrote:


On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:21:54 -0900
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


We need to realize that the validity of GPL is closely tied to the
notion of shrink-wrap licenses.


IANAL, but I believe both are based on copyright law.


YOUR ANAL!?  I see.  This must skew your thought somewhat on such 
matters.


Tom


S, what? Only lawers can think straight?
IMHO XOR that thought :-)



Now this thread has confused me.  What is XOR an acronym for?

Tom, does the phrase "YOUR ANAL"  translates to "you are not a lawyer", 
or "you are extremely retentive?"


--scott



Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-17 Thread Gary Dunn
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:21:54 -0900
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > >We need to realize that the validity of GPL is closely tied to the
> > >notion of shrink-wrap licenses.
> > 
> > IANAL, but I believe both are based on copyright law.
>
> YOUR ANAL!?  I see.  This must skew your thought somewhat on such matters.
> 
> Tom

S, what? Only lawers can think straight? 
IMHO XOR that thought :-)

-- 
  _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
 _/ _/
_/  Gary Dunn  _/
   _/  Open Slate Project _/
  _/  http://openslate.sourceforge.net/  _/
 _/  http://www.aloha.com/~knowtree/_/
_/  Honolulu   _/
   _/  registered Linux user #273809  _/
  _/ _/
 _/  This tagline is umop apisdn.   _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/

-
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/




Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-17 Thread tom_gordon
YOUR ANAL!?  I see.  This must skew your thought somewhat on such matters.

Tom



Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: 
Subject:Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Hawaii Linux Institute wrote:
>We need to realize that the validity of GPL is closely tied to the
>notion of shrink-wrap licenses.

IANAL, but I believe both are based on copyright law.

>First, since there are no face-to-face negotiations, do you really need
>to abide by the terms of GPL and open your source code?

I don't think 'face-to-face negotiations' are required.  GPL is a legal
document.  IF IT APPLIES, then you will abide by it because it's the law.
Or the FSF will go after you.  The 'if it applies' sentence fragment is
very important.  Because no one is forced to accept the GPL.  But if you
don't accept the GPL, then you don't get to use the software.  And by use,
I mean make derivative works.

>If you have to open your source code, to what extent?

To the extent that the GPL specifies.  The GPL is very clear on this
issue, and I qoute:

  "3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; 
or,"

I don't think there's any wiggle room here.

>Since there is no uniform law regarding shrink-wrap licenses, answer to
>this question will of course vary from state to state.

True.

>Then, there is the issue of whether the GPL will bind you forever.  Both
>issues have been advanced by David Boise of SCO.

The GPL is based on copyright law.  It binds you for the same duration as
copyright binds you.

--jc
-- 
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
LUAU mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/luau





Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-16 Thread Jimen Ching
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Hawaii Linux Institute wrote:
>We need to realize that the validity of GPL is closely tied to the
>notion of shrink-wrap licenses.

IANAL, but I believe both are based on copyright law.

>First, since there are no face-to-face negotiations, do you really need
>to abide by the terms of GPL and open your source code?

I don't think 'face-to-face negotiations' are required.  GPL is a legal
document.  IF IT APPLIES, then you will abide by it because it's the law.
Or the FSF will go after you.  The 'if it applies' sentence fragment is
very important.  Because no one is forced to accept the GPL.  But if you
don't accept the GPL, then you don't get to use the software.  And by use,
I mean make derivative works.

>If you have to open your source code, to what extent?

To the extent that the GPL specifies.  The GPL is very clear on this
issue, and I qoute:

  "3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,"

I don't think there's any wiggle room here.

>Since there is no uniform law regarding shrink-wrap licenses, answer to
>this question will of course vary from state to state.

True.

>Then, there is the issue of whether the GPL will bind you forever.  Both
>issues have been advanced by David Boise of SCO.

The GPL is based on copyright law.  It binds you for the same duration as
copyright binds you.

--jc
-- 
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-16 Thread Warren Togami

Hawaii Linux Institute wrote:


Warren Togami wrote:


SCO



We need to realize that the validity of GPL is closely tied to the 
notion of shrink-wrap licenses.  There are two important issues.  First, 
since there are no face-to-face negotiations, do you really need to 
abide by the terms of GPL and open your source code?  If you have to 
open your source code, to what extent?  Since there is no uniform law 
regarding shrink-wrap licenses, answer to this question will of course 
vary from state to state.  Then, there is the issue of whether the GPL 
will bind you forever.  Both issues have been advanced by David Boise of 
SCO.




I don't pretend to truly understand this legal stuff, but I recall the 
FSF saying repeatedly, even long before this SCO mess that you do NOT 
need to agree to the terms of the GPL in order to USE GPL software.  The 
GPL only regulates what you can and cannot do in distribution.


With regard to SCO,  AFAIK, the real issue is, whether Microsoft should 
be allowed to essentially underwrite the entire cost of the law suit 
under the color of a highly questionable licensing agreement.  A friend 
in Massachusetts told me that some firms are considering filing a 
federal RICO ( Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization) law 
suit naming Microsoft and SCO as co-defendants.  Now that should be 
interesting.  wayne




http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031016164004379
If that is the case, then perhaps these guys should be another 
co-defendant after investing $50 million in SCO.


Warren




Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-16 Thread Hawaii Linux Institute

Warren Togami wrote:


SCO


We need to realize that the validity of GPL is closely tied to the 
notion of shrink-wrap licenses.  There are two important issues.  First, 
since there are no face-to-face negotiations, do you really need to 
abide by the terms of GPL and open your source code?  If you have to 
open your source code, to what extent?  Since there is no uniform law 
regarding shrink-wrap licenses, answer to this question will of course 
vary from state to state.  Then, there is the issue of whether the GPL 
will bind you forever.  Both issues have been advanced by David Boise of 
SCO.


With regard to SCO,  AFAIK, the real issue is, whether Microsoft should 
be allowed to essentially underwrite the entire cost of the law suit 
under the color of a highly questionable licensing agreement.  A friend 
in Massachusetts told me that some firms are considering filing a 
federal RICO ( Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization) law 
suit naming Microsoft and SCO as co-defendants.  Now that should be 
interesting.  wayne




Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-15 Thread Jimen Ching
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, R.Scott Belford wrote:
>If intellectual property is not of paramount importance, then GPL
>software is viable.  It all comes down to how one wishes to
>differentiate his product/service.  If service/support/implementation
>are the strengths and revenue-generators of a company, then using GPL
>and releasing any tweaks is more than acceptable.  If one wishes to
>differentiate his product with coding expertise, then starting with
>less restrictive code is probably the better idea.

I think an easy way to determine what license to use is by asking
yourself, do I support the idea of free/open source software?  If you
don't, just buy a proprietary package.  I'm sure there is a company out
there that developed something that fits your need.  If it doesn't meet
all of your needs, I'm sure the company is willing to add some features
for a fee.

But if you believe in the free/open source software idea, then use an open
source compliant software and contribute back.

What I don't understand are people who insist on leaching off other
people's work, and then complain when those people try to stop them.
It's like, some people believe they have some kind of God given right to
leach off others.  What is that?  How does one justify something like
that?

--jc
-- 
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-15 Thread R.Scott Belford

On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 06:34 AM, Vince Hoang wrote:


Cautious vendors that are concerned with intellectual property do
not need avoid using open-source until a legal precedence is set
with the GPL. For lots of GPL software, there is usually a BSD
equivalent.


The folks at Lavanet have created another company that has developed a 
rather impressive and well-designed spam appliance aimed at the 
Corporate sector.  It is based on Open
Source software.  Because they have added proprietary tweaks to the 
product, it is *bsd based.  Consequently, the changes they have made 
remain "theirs."


If intellectual property is not of paramount importance, then GPL 
software is viable.  It all comes down to how one wishes to 
differentiate his product/service.  If service/support/implementation 
are the strengths and revenue-generators of a company, then using GPL 
and releasing any tweaks is more than acceptable.  If one wishes to 
differentiate his product with coding expertise, then starting with 
less restrictive code is probably the better idea.




-Vince


--scott



Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-15 Thread tom_gordon
or LGPL

Moo



Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: 
Subject:Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

Cautious vendors that are concerned with intellectual property do
not need avoid using open-source until a legal precedence is set
with the GPL. For lots of GPL software, there is usually a BSD
equivalent.

-Vince
___
LUAU mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/luau





Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-15 Thread Vince Hoang
Cautious vendors that are concerned with intellectual property do
not need avoid using open-source until a legal precedence is set
with the GPL. For lots of GPL software, there is usually a BSD
equivalent.

-Vince


Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-14 Thread Jimen Ching
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Warren Togami wrote:
>GPL disallows dynamic and static linking of closed source stuff

I think you're making a common mistake that many new readers of the GPL
make, which is--the license doesn't specify what is allowed or disallowed.
What it does specify is, if you do A, you must do B, or if you don't do C,
you don't need to do D.

The question is not 'what is allowed or disallowed', but 'what is a
derived work'?  Because the GPL only applies to a derived work, which is
'distributed' in binary form.

>while LGPL allows dynamic linking but not static linking.

Not according to my last reading of the LGPL.  The license only states
that, if a derived work is distributed (in binary form of course), you
must also distribute 'object' files which allow re-linking with the LGPL
library.  There's no differentiation of 'dynamic' vs. 'static'.  When the
licenses were written, the concept of shared libraries haven't even been
developed yet.

--jc
-- 
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-14 Thread Warren Togami

Jimen Ching wrote:

This is not entirely accurate.  IIRC Linus Torvalds made the linux
kernel "GPL with one exception", that exception is binary-only modules
are allowed (but generally frowned upon).

Normally the GPL disallows keeping source code closed even if you
dynamically link to it, and cases like closed source linux kernel
modules are normally not allowed with pure GPL licensed stuff.



Define 'dynamically link'.  The GPL document uses terms like 'derivative
works', and 'works based on the Program'.  Until a court defines what
these phrases mean, all interpretations are open.  There's really no point
in theorizing.

--jc


That wasn't my theory.  That was from common knowledge from every GPL vs 
LGPL discussion.  GPL disallows dynamic and static linking of closed 
source stuff, while LGPL allows dynamic linking but not static linking.


Warren



Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-14 Thread Jimen Ching
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Warren Togami wrote:
>This is not entirely accurate.  IIRC Linus Torvalds made the linux
>kernel "GPL with one exception", that exception is binary-only modules
>are allowed (but generally frowned upon).
>
>Normally the GPL disallows keeping source code closed even if you
>dynamically link to it, and cases like closed source linux kernel
>modules are normally not allowed with pure GPL licensed stuff.

Define 'dynamically link'.  The GPL document uses terms like 'derivative
works', and 'works based on the Program'.  Until a court defines what
these phrases mean, all interpretations are open.  There's really no point
in theorizing.

--jc
-- 
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-14 Thread Warren Togami
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 08:28, Charles Lockhart wrote:
> Links to the docs/articles I was reading are:
> http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031014204258580
Read Groklaw's response to this Forbes article.  This quote below is the
key part:

"... if they choose to use GPL code rather than spending the money and
the time to develop their own code. The way to avoid the terms of the
GPL is not to steal it and hide it; it's to write your own code."

Warren



Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-14 Thread Warren Togami

Disclaimer:
I am not a lawyer.  The below is only what I think is true based upon 
stuff I have read.  Some of that was on Slashdot, so do check your own 
facts and get a real lawyer.


Jimen Ching wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Charles Lockhart wrote:


q1. It makes sense to me that software companies that want to integrate
GPL'd code should have to follow the GPL ruling that the derivative
source has to be released with the product.  I think it makes it tough
on companies, but if they want the "free lunch" of using "free code"
then they should respect the licensing of that "free code".



Companies can use GPL code without deriving from it.  Deriving from GPL
code means the GPL code is modified.  You can develop a product from GPL
code unmodified.  Then you have nothing to contribute back.  Any
additional software in the product must be developped without 'including'
the GPL code.  This is usually how Linux is used.  You can write a
proprietary driver and use a standard Linux kernel.  You don't need to
release the driver source code, but any modifications to the Linux kernel
must be released.


This is not entirely accurate.  IIRC Linus Torvalds made the linux 
kernel "GPL with one exception", that exception is binary-only modules 
are allowed (but generally frowned upon).


Normally the GPL disallows keeping source code closed even if you 
dynamically link to it, and cases like closed source linux kernel 
modules are normally not allowed with pure GPL licensed stuff.





if someone violates your interest in that something, and you knowingly
allow them to do it, it kind of seems that it somehow nulls or damages
your case for maintaining that interest or ownership of something.



I have read that patents don't behave this way.  You can knowingly allow
someone to violate your patent for years and then only file a suit after a
lot of money has been made from the patent.  This is usually how patents
are used.



Yep.


For trademark violations, if you don't protect it, you lose it.



Yep.


I'm not sure about copyrights.  I think it falls somewhere in the middle.


I think your copyright protections do not diminish if you don't enforce 
them, but I heard of some complications in this.  For example, if you 
didn't know a copyright violation was happening for a long time but 
suddenly discovered it, you can attempt to exercise that copyright.  In 
other cases where you KNOW the copyright is being violated but you do 
not take necessary steps to mitigate damages, you lose some kind of 
legal protection.


The latter case is a possible issue in the SCO case if the linux kernel 
does contain SCO copyrighted material as SCO alleges.  SCO while 
claiming breach of contract and copyright
infringement completely refuse to say what parts of the linux kernel are 
infringing, because they claim the community will remove and hide it in 
order to hide wrong doing.  This of course is absurd because all 
development is wide open, and archives containing older releases will 
not go away.






And so the FSF pretty much has to go after anybody they know who violates
the GPL, in order to maintain it's validity?



I don't know if they have to.  But I know they do...  Each time I see
someone mentioning a GPL violation, I see the FSF immediately going after
the violators.


(Read this on Slashdot on some point... I don't know if it is true.)
Some people criticize the GPL because it seems only the copyright holder 
can sue for damages if the GPL is being violated.  For that reason it is 
recommended that people sign their copyrights over to the Free Software 
Foundation so that they have the power to litigate, especially if the 
individuals don't have financial resources to litigate.



http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl.php
For this reason some have suggested using the OSL license instead which 
does not have this problem.  I *think* this link is the OSL.


For most companies on the receiving end of a possible GPL violation 
lawsuit, the severe negative PR and FSF statement suggesting a lawsuit 
has been enough to cause a resolution.


In this case it appears to me that Linksys/Broadcom/Cisco is trying very 
hard to avoid playing by the rules.  It is my personal opinion that if 
they wanted to make a closed source product, they should not have used 
GPL software.  The GPL explicitly exists to prevent players from having 
a free lunch without giving back to the community.  It is audacious to 
complain about not being able to steal intellectual property and calling 
it your own, when the license disallows it.


Warren



Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-14 Thread Jimen Ching
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Charles Lockhart wrote:
>q1. It makes sense to me that software companies that want to integrate
>GPL'd code should have to follow the GPL ruling that the derivative
>source has to be released with the product.  I think it makes it tough
>on companies, but if they want the "free lunch" of using "free code"
>then they should respect the licensing of that "free code".

Companies can use GPL code without deriving from it.  Deriving from GPL
code means the GPL code is modified.  You can develop a product from GPL
code unmodified.  Then you have nothing to contribute back.  Any
additional software in the product must be developped without 'including'
the GPL code.  This is usually how Linux is used.  You can write a
proprietary driver and use a standard Linux kernel.  You don't need to
release the driver source code, but any modifications to the Linux kernel
must be released.

>It's an integrated package, the software in question wouldn't be run by a
>user.

It wouldn't be run by an end-user.  But no end-user would care about the
source code of any other GPL software.  Would your grandma care that she
can get the source code to the Linux kernel?  Maybe, but most likely not.
The people who will use the source code are developers who want to enhance
or modify the source code.  This has always been the case with free
software.

>if someone violates your interest in that something, and you knowingly
>allow them to do it, it kind of seems that it somehow nulls or damages
>your case for maintaining that interest or ownership of something.

I have read that patents don't behave this way.  You can knowingly allow
someone to violate your patent for years and then only file a suit after a
lot of money has been made from the patent.  This is usually how patents
are used.

For trademark violations, if you don't protect it, you lose it.

I'm not sure about copyrights.  I think it falls somewhere in the middle.

>And so the FSF pretty much has to go after anybody they know who violates
>the GPL, in order to maintain it's validity?

I don't know if they have to.  But I know they do...  Each time I see
someone mentioning a GPL violation, I see the FSF immediately going after
the violators.

>Sorry, I get confused easy, a pointer to a website explaining this in
>human speech (ie, not legalese) would be great.
>
>Links to the docs/articles I was reading are:
>http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL

How about http://www.bitlaw.com/?

--jc
-- 
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

2003-10-14 Thread kmayer
Charles Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> q1. ... What I'm not understanding is the context for this case: the
> code is running on Linksys routers, it's not like they're releasing a
> software product.  It's an integrated package, the software in
> question wouldn't be run by a user.  Ultimately, I don't understand
> it, but is that the same thing as somebody writing a software program
> meant for distribution and violating the GPL?

[ I had to go and read the Forbes article -- Cisco bought Linksys,
Linksys is using a Broadcom chip, which has some GPL'd code on it -- FSF
wants all the players to abide by the GPL or remove the GPL'd code. I'd
say that is standard operating procedure for FSF ]

Some of this might be in the GPL FAQ, but the essentials are that some
code written by Broadcom is derived from GPL'd code, therefore
Broadcom's code is also GPL'd. They must release it. It doesn't matter
whether the code runs on embedded hardware or off the shelf ix86
parts. They are obligated to release the source code (that doesn't mean
they have to make it portable to other hardware, but they are giving
away intellectual property that they, Broadcom, developed).

Cisco, of course, would rather not give away the intellectual property
that they paid $500 million for.

> So am I right in thinking that if a group (such as Cisco/Linksys in
> this case) violates the GPL, it's known, and nobody does anything
> about it, it sort of invalidates the GPL, at least maybe for that
> particular thing, and maybe just overall?  And so the FSF pretty much
> has to go after anybody they know who violates the GPL, in order to
> maintain it's validity?

Yeah, you have to enforce your copyrights. But that's what the FSF is
there for.

I think the Forbes article was pretty heavy handed. Broadcom got a free
ride on what is arguably millions of dollars of technology, and now
they're balking at the terms.