From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Dec 17 16:32:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from prism.flugsvamp.com (66-188-92-95.mad.wi.charter.com [66.188.92.95]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A7437B416 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:32:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by prism.flugsvamp.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fBI0V4301197; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:31:04 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from jlemon) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:31:03 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon To: "Gary W. Swearingen" Cc: Jonathan Lemon , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IBM's intentions with JFS (was: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD)) Message-ID: <20011217183103.K377@prism.flugsvamp.com> References: <200112171739.fBHHdJj86694@prism.flugsvamp.com> <293d2935g7.d29@localhost.localdomain> <20011217160411.G377@prism.flugsvamp.com> <5dpu5d1j1y.u5d@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: <5dpu5d1j1y.u5d@localhost.localdomain> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 04:14:01PM -0800, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > > Note the "a work containing the Program or a portioin of it" part. > (There's no need to argue about the interpretation of the word "based" > as you propose.) Why is a Red Hat (or FreeBSD) software compilation on > CD not a "work based on the [GPL'd] Program"? (It is also a collective > work, since it contains publisher-owned work, and is definitely worthy > of copyrights.) And like I said, you then have to the GPL to try to > learn if it allows distribution as part of such a work without infecting > the other work. That's debatable and reliance on any conclusion is > legally risky. Acceptably so in the case of things like gcc and binutils > where the owners have made us feel comfortable that they will continue > to allow such use regardless of the GPL. Also acceptably so for much > other software because of the common (mis?)understanding of the GPL > which holds certain uses (like in collective works) non-viral so that > the risk of being sued is small. > > So it is law and the language of the GPL that you should find absurd. Note that the law is not as clearcut as you make it seem. You can argue it your way, and I can argue it my way, but until the matter is actually decided by the courts, either interpretation may be correct. Trivial example: remember those ski lift tickets that said something to the effect of "by purchasing this ticket, you agree to the risks and hold harmless..?" These were decided by the courts as being invalid. So even if the language is clear cut, there still is the matter of legality. Note that the courts, in deciding how a law/license should be interpreted, take into account the intent of the person(s) writing the license. In this case, the author is Richard Stallman. I believe that Greg has already asked for clarification, and has posted Mr Stallman's answer - in which he states that the GPL does *NOT* apply in your scenario. Now, in lieu of the courts making a decision, I would say that this is the closest you're going to get to an authoritative answer. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message