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