On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> What if there were a non-GPL and a GPL implementation written to the same
> interface definition? I don't want to drag in the *ix kernel here, but there must be
> other cases.
For an excercise in creative but totally useless semantics, seek out and exami
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, Schilling, Richard wrote:
> Generally, if the program Alice writes for Bob references *anything* in the
> GPLed library, Bob's program could be considered a deriverative work. If
> the program Alice write does not reference anything in the GPLed library,
> there is no point i
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> Ah, but then you raise this question: If the GPL is an ordinary
> contract, where's the consideration? Shrink-wrap contracts are on
> shaky ground (nobody but Microsoft, AFAIK, has ever been able to
> enforce one in court), and since neither money nor an
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:> > I would very much like to hear
that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
> > where is it?
>
> In my understanding, Alice must not have used the GPL'ed software
> in her design and testing. It would be very hard to avoid this
> in practice
> This is probably the most legally controversial part of the GPL. It's
> difficult to say whether or not a program which uses a library is a
> derived work of that library. If I were a judge (and IANAL so this is
> unlikely to say the least), I would probably decide on a case-by-case
> basis.
G'day all.
On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:45:47AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> This is offered in the spirit of "How To Make Atomic Bombs", and does
> *not* mean that the author approves of the conduct described herein.
[deletia]
> Now who has violated Trent's copyright? Not Alice: she did not modi
Mark Wells wrote:
> Alice didn't distribute any actual GPL'd software with her
proprietary
> code. Are you saying that the GPL prohibits the _use_ of GPL
software in
> development of proprietary software? So I can't use, say, GCC to
compile
> my non-GPL program?
>
Generally, if the program Alice writes for Bob references *anything* in the
GPLed library, Bob's program could be considered a deriverative work. If
the program Alice write does not reference anything in the GPLed library,
there is no point in linking to it in the first place.
Another way to l
Justin Wells wrote:
> -- fame from becoming well known as the author of a free software work
>
> -- expectation that you will receive further copyrighted material in
> return, from someone who contributed to your project (this is
> explicitly mentioned as being of value in US title
On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 04:51:03PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Ah, but then you raise this question: If the GPL is an ordinary
> contract, where's the consideration?
There's lots of consideration:
-- fame from becoming well known as the author of a free software work
-- expectation that you
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Says who? If she distributed a derivative work of GPL'ed software,
> > then it must be GPL'ed. The question is whether or not Alice has
> > a derivative work.
>
> In my first scenario, Alice made a derivative work but didn't distribute
> it. S
Good points. There is a federal court of appeals case that has already
addressed the question on shrink wrap. Yes, they are enforceable. More
important, click wraps will be enforceable in most states soon as states
begin to enact a uniform law called UCITA (10 states are considering UCITA
now).
U
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
> 1. The issue raised may be breach of the terms of a license (Trent's GPL)
> rather than a copyright infringement.
Ah, but then you raise this question: If the GPL is an ordinary
contract, where's the consideration? Shrink-wrap contracts are on
shaky ground (no
Copyright is a matter of strict liability. On the merits, intent is not
relevant. For example, if a user makes a copy without permission to do so,
he has violated someone's copyright even if he did not intend to do so.
(There are defenses to infringement, but the point is intent is not relevant
in
Two points:
1. The issue raised may be breach of the terms of a license (Trent's GPL)
rather than a copyright infringement.
2. Alice is breaching the terms of the GPL. There is no doubt that Trent has
a remedy. Moreover, he could extract a royalty fee from Alice, if he so
desired.
Rod
> -
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 15:39:23 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The law considers intent, and ignores technical detail. If a person's
> actions are clearly intended to make a copyright ineffective, and if
> the copyright does in fact become
"Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote:
> Says who? If she distributed a derivative work of GPL'ed software,
> then it must be GPL'ed. The question is whether or not Alice has
> a derivative work.
In my first scenario, Alice made a derivative work but didn't distribute
it. She then distributed her o
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> > The FSF takes the position that if you distribute software that can only be
> > run by linking it with something GPLed, your software is a derivative work of
> > the GPLed software even if you don't include any parts of it.
> What if there were a non-GPL a
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The law considers intent, and ignores technical detail. If a person's
> actions are clearly intended to make a copyright ineffective, and if
> the copyright does in fact become ineffective, then the person has
> violated the copyright.
Well, sometimes. The creators of
From: Mark Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>
> > > I would very much like to hear that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
> > > where is it?
> >
> > In my understanding, Alice must not have used the GPL'ed software
> > in her design
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:45:47 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I would very much like to hear that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
where is it?
The flaw is in treating the law as though it were a computer program.
The law considers intent, and ignores technical de
I wrote:
> Alice could test using the unfree library (for which, perhaps, she does not
> have a distribution license) and distribute the unfree application to run
> with Trent's freely available clone.
Two little ironies that I thought of just after posting:
1) The harder Trent works to make hi
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> The FSF takes the position that if you distribute software that can only be
> run by linking it with something GPLed, your software is a derivative work of
> the GPLed software even if you don't include any parts of it.
That strikes me as unlikely to be the law.
Consider t
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > I would very much like to hear that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
> > where is it?
>
> In my understanding, Alice must not have used the GPL'ed software
> in her design and testing. It would be very hard to avoid this
> in practice
This is an interesting debate. Important copyright issues are implicated. I
think there are important distinctions between the HTML example and the
Windows OS. I think it is interesting how people quickly use MSFT in these
bad-boy hypotheticals, but rarely point how Sun Microsystems is actually
us
RMS may be correct in this case. I am not a lawyer. The counter-argument
that MSFT could ban people from making Windows software doesn't fly.
They CAN ban you from creating derivitive works based on their copyrighted
material, they have every right to do that. By encouraging people to
create th
This basically sounds like "user does the link".
The FSF takes the position that if you distribute software that can only be
run by linking it with something GPLed, your software is a derivative work of
the GPLed software even if you don't include any parts of it. So by these
standards, Alice wo
This is very similar to the fiasco involving some Quake patches that have been
flying around (check out slashdot's archives froma few days ago to get
links). Basically someone had taken the GPL'd Quake source and tried to clean
up some server security problems. They released the changes in the
> I would very much like to hear that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
> where is it?
In my understanding, Alice must not have used the GPL'ed software
in her design and testing. It would be very hard to avoid this
in practice. Claiming to have avoided it, and still distributing
instructio
This is offered in the spirit of "How To Make Atomic Bombs", and does
*not* mean that the author approves of the conduct described herein.
A close reading of the GPL suggests the following way to distribute
unfree software that contains GPL-specific components.
1. Alice designs, debugs, and tes
30 matches
Mail list logo
