EE's do it 'til it Hz 8-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~John D. Zitterkopf~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zittware.com
_____________________________________________________________________
Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B)These email
address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my
permission. Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will
result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for
repeats.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2002, Andreas Mueller wrote:
>
> >Date: 22 Sep 2002 23:15:53 +0200
> >From: Andreas Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Cc: Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> > cdrdao-devel list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], Heiko Eißfeldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Content-Type: text/plain
> >Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
> >
> >On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 22:47, Lourens Veen wrote:
> >> On Sunday 22 September 2002 22:30, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >> > From: Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > However, as libedc is not GPLd the "viral" part of the GPL does
> >> > not apply to libedc - no matter what's written in the GPL. The
> >> > problem is that Andreas did not make this clear before. As a
> >> > result of this "missing hint" other people did believe that
> >> > libedc is GPLd.
> >>
> >> Yes, the LICENSE file was removed from that directory. That's a
> >> mistake. And as you say the viral part of the GPL does not apply to
> >> libedc_ecc because it's not under the GPL. It does, however, apply
> >> to cdrdao.
> >
> >The libedc_ecc source code did not contain such a LICENSE file (in
> >fact no license file at all) at the time I fetched it. I was in contact
> >with Heiko at that time and he also did not mention any restrictions.
> >Of course this does not excuse my mistake - I should have explicitly
> >asked for placing it under GPL.
>
> This brings up a different twist then. If the source code did
> not contain any license file at all, and did not have any license
> in any of the files, it would IMHO be licenseless. Wether or not
> the law would interpret it to be public domain, and hence useable
> however, or the law would interpret it to be unuseable without a
> specific license and require you to contact the author to get a
> specific license statement, would likely vary greatly from
> country to country, and jurisdiction to jurisdiciton. That would
> be one for a copyright/patent lawyer to answer.
>
> In theory at least, it's possible you could ship it anyway in
> such a case. But myself would probably honor the author's request
> even if he messed up by not including a license, just for
> gentleman's understanding and ethical reasoning... Then I'd
> probably re-implement the missing bits from scratch, or try to
> find some other amiable solution.
>
> >Regarding the license terms I think we should wait for Mike A. Harris's
> >answer to my question as he is an expert on this topic. He clearly
> >stated that GPLd software cannot have non GPLd parts. The only open
> >question is if they way cdrdao handles the libedc_ecc code can count
> >as linking in non GPLd libraries. Depending on the answer I'll have
> >to react...
>
> GPL'd software can have non-GPL'd parts, so long as the licensing
> terms of the other parts do not add any additional restrictions
> on the usage of the source code beyond what the GPL states. This
> is what allows you for example to use BSD (without the
> advertising clause) licensed code in GPL programs directly. The
> BSD license is "freer" than the GPL, so GPL'd software can use
> BSD licensed code in it. The BSD license that has the
> advertising clause however is incompatible with the GPL because
> it creates an additional restriction that must be met, and that
> conflicts with section 6 of the GPL, which states that you may
> not impose additional restrictions on the work licensed under the
> GPL.
>
> This is how the GPL protects freedom of the code, by ensuring
> that when you've got GPL'd code, no one can remove any of the
> rights that the GPL provides you with. They cannot restrict you
> in any way beyond what the GPL license states. That means that
> they can not say "This program is GPL licensed except for section
> 4 and 7 of the GPL". The GPL does not permit them to do that.
>
> Any author who puts up software under the GPL, and adds any form
> of additional restriction invalidates the license. It's their
> program, so they don't have to worry about any legal problems
> because they own it. However, anyone _else_ who takes that code,
> and redistributes it, modifies it, copys it, etc. is violating
> the license because the terms conflict with each other. It's up
> to the author of a program to put a license on it which is
> legally proper, and GPL plus restrictions is not. When they do
> that, they merely disallow others from legally redistributing
> their code.
>
>
>
> --
> Mike A. Harris
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Cdrdao-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdrdao-devel
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
