Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:29:52 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net> Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Use/Utilize Message-ID: <3CB4CAF0.854DFE13@mindspring.com> References: <3CB2125B.8F11C442@mindspring.com> <200204090020.g390KTPL059689@grimreaper.grondar.org> <3CB2733E.F98DD29B@mindspring.com> <20020409132012.F48437@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB3737A.1551931@mindspring.com> <20020410043451.GA1013@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB3DF33.5B677641@mindspring.com> <20020410073309.GA279@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB41997.214F408C@mindspring.com> <20020410130629.A16154@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB424E4.629016E0@mindspring.com> <23g023xrnd.023@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > (It's funny that you insist on bringing us back to some paraphrased quote > of stupid claims supposedly heard in GNU/Linux forums. The error of the > claim should have been obvious to anyone who had read the BSD license. > The OP was either trolling or just thinking out loud. There was no > serious controversy or attempt at obfusication going on, AFAIK. (Apart > from a couple of people who where completely ignorant of the topic.)) I think it was a troll, and I think that the error of the claim is not that obvious to most people, or these discussions would not keep poping up, or the would, but they'd have only one side to them. 8-). [ ... ] > I choose to ignore the inapplicability of the point to my comment about > the GPL saying that it doesn't cover "use" (which I quoted in a > unsuccessful attempt to remind you what we were talking about, namely > running, not things protected by copyright). I ignored it because I > thought is was a silly point to begin with since the words would mean > the same thing to 99.94% of the parties to the licenses and because it > had nothing to do with my point about the GPL anyway. I was just trying > to refer to this part of section "0": > > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of > running the Program is not restricted, > > without having to quote what everyone has seen many times. But you use > (or utilize) it as a chance to slam the GPL's (admittedly abundant) > misleading language and avoiding my point. Obfuscation indeed. No. I think "running" and "use" in the body of the license and "use pieces of it in new free programs" is what leads to the misapprehension that it's possible to incorporate other licensed code into GPL'ed code. If I didn't talk about your point about performance of the copyrighted work, well, it's because I didn't disagree with you. 8-) 8-). > > When I pointed out that the requirement for retaining the notice > > was inclusive: > > And when I pointed out that the requirement for "retaining" the actual > license (permission) part of the license-related text was non-existent, > you ignored it. (But remember that I also noted that the presence or > absence of license text need not mean the presence or absence of > license.) No, that's not true. In this case, you *are* wrong. You are required to retain the license with the distribution. That is one of the terms of the license: * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Failure to meet those conditions fails to comply with the provision granting the permission in the first place. > I think some of the initial confusion was a result of the OP's use of > "copyright notice" for what I (and apparently you, judging from the > previous quote) assumed he meant all the related text (copyright notice > and license (permission, conditions, and disclaimer)). Yes. Technically, removing the copyright notice on a work is legal, so long as you do not assert a copyright on the work after that (I think this happened with some of Soren's code recently, actually). The problem in the case of BSD licensed code is that the removal makes you non-compliant with the license, which is your only source of rights. So I think that your and my assumption was warranted, even if the nitty-gritty details were not explained. The problem which then arises is that the OP's comments on the ability or inability to subsume BSD licensed code into GPL'ed code are impacted by the inability of such a subsumation to comply with the GPL relicensing requirement while complying with the BSD license (yes, we both hold this to be an unenforcible term in the GPL, but that's just our educated opinion ;^)). > > The entire "use/utilize" debate is an attempt to discredit an > > example of the intentional misuse of language. > > An example which richly deserved to be discredited, both because it had > nothing to do with the point it was in response to and on its (lack of) > merit. It's a shame that you can't bring yourself to admit it, > especially when there are so many good opportunities for you to rant > about RMS's misuse of language. 8-). I think you confise me with Brett Glass and John Dyson. > > Even were this attempt successful (and I do not believe that it > > has been), the only thing a success in the redefinition of the > > word "utilize" as a synonym for the word "use" would have is to > > indicate a poor choice of examples on my part, not that my premise > > was invalid (or even valid, to be fair). > > Again, the problem with that is that it wasn't your premise that was > being discussed. It was my premise; which you kept side-tracking until > I gave up in disgust. It would probably have helped if you had said: "Let's talk about controls on running software, instead". 8-) 8-). There's actually a wealth of discussion in that area, both with the proposed changes to the GPL (GPLv3) and the Microsoft Windows XP "phone home" registration requirement for continued operation after 30 days. > (BTW, I didn't SAY (as you unfairly said that I said) > that the HP and other lawyers were stupid enough to think that > those files were not published. Actually, that was one of two choices... if you intended to imply a third, I missed it. > I said only that the statements are untrue; because the files have > been published. I chose not to say > whether I thought the lawyers were making an overreaching claim in the > manner of many licenses or were quite innocently claiming something that > was true when they claimed it but which has subsequently become untrue > through the actions of others. You implicty said that, and you just said it again, by claiming that the works they claim are unpublished are, in fact, published. Only the copyright holder can publish. Copyrights are not trademarks; you do not have to assert them to maintain them. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CB4CAF0.854DFE13>