From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 4 20:34:21 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FFC16A4BF for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:34:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from papagena.rockefeller.edu (user-0cdfelp.cable.mindspring.com [24.215.186.185]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8759543F85 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:34:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rsidd@online.fr) Received: (qmail 1569 invoked by uid 1002); 5 Sep 2003 03:34:17 -0000 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 23:34:17 -0400 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: Brett Glass Message-ID: <20030905033417.GA1374@online.fr> Mail-Followup-To: Brett Glass , Mark Murray , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030904135920.03aab5e0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030904205124.038334c0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030904205452.03b38c40@localhost> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.20 i686 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org cc: Mark Murray Subject: Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 03:34:21 -0000 Brett Glass wrote: > If you view GPLed code, and then write something similar, you are > open to claims that your work is derivative of the GPLed code and > therefore must likewise be GPLed. You are open to the same sort of claims if you view closed-source code (under, say, an NDA, or in a book where the authors have not relinquished copyright for the code). However, with the GPL, the FSF or whoever owns the copyrights will be satisfied if you remove the offending code fragments: in fact if they are small innocuous-looking chunks nobody's likely to pursue you. (If it's a large and critical chunk of code, of course, you deserve what you get for copying it.) A commercial company won't let you get away so easily, even if the evidence for infringement is extremely dubious: witness SCO's absurd "evidence" in the recent slides that got picked apart by Greg Lehey and others. A musical melody is very different from a detailed code fragment; it is more akin to an algorithm, which one can believably claim to have copied by accident. A code fragment is more akin to the actual detailed recording or orchestration of the tune, which cannot be copied unwittingly or unconsciously. In the musical world, both the tune and the recording are subject to copyright (typically by different people), but in the programming world, algorithms are not subject to copyright. That said, we live in a litigious world, and if some nasty person really wants to sue you on flippant copyright or patent violation or other grounds (like SCO), you must have deep pockets (like IBM). Of all organisations in the world, be assured that the FSF is the least likely to sue you for anything less than brazen cut-and-pasting of entire programs, despite your personal vendetta against them. - Rahul