Date: 19 Dec 2001 18:10:29 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <pqr8pqy73e.8pq@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011219085146.00decca0@localhost> References: <20011218121011.E21649@monorchid.lemis.com> <4hzo4hyv3c.o4h@localhost.localdomain> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217221801.02841bc0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218102351.02841f00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218124204.02812700@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218180158.00d6fc50@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011219085146.00decca0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> writes: > http://slashdot.org/articles/01/05/23/1723215.shtml > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/07/18/214202&mode=flat > http://www.vidomi.com/article.php?sid=1 > > Note that Vidomi, the company in question, was forced, by > the FSF's arm twisting, to release substantial portions of > its own work even though its program simply LINKED to DLLs > built with GPLed code .... Thanks for posting those. I've been ignoring much of /. recently and missed that. Especially interesting is the Eben Moglen letter linked (via JavaScript, grrrr) off the middle of the last page listed above. Given some of the strange ideas I've seen from Moglen, I don't give his legal opinions complete credence, but given his position with the FSF, it is gives us a pretty good idea of what his and RMS's opinions would probably be on a couple of the issues we've discussed. Note that he spoke for himself, not the FSF. I found two things particularly interesting: The company (after the arm-twisting) planned to distrubute a package that consisted of GPL'd code and non-GPL'd code and some of the latter installed the rest. Moglen found that no "technical interpenetration" justifies regarding them as a single, combined work and that such packages are "mere aggregations" permitted by the GPL. Comments: First, that's one opinion and some licensors may have others. Second, I'd like to know if there is common legal understanding of what a "work" is in law that makes combining code as a single package that is distributed is not a single work, because doing so with stories or articles does make a single work. Or is it just another of Moglen's fantastical opinions? Third, it's sad, but probably true, that Moglen's (and RMS's) opinions will carry much weight and influence the opinions of others like licensors and lawyers and maybe even some courts, mostly because of his long history with the FSF, not matter how badly he interprets the GPL (which he might have had a hand in writing, FAIK) compared to the poor souls who have had to read and accept the thing who can't read his mind or even feel the need to. The other interesting thing is his equating the GPL+non_GPL package distribution method with that of a Linux OS CD-ROM. My question is why we can't equate both to a staticly linked program? How does a dumb linker create a copyrightable work? (Given, that the non-GPL part is not a derivative of the GPL part. The obvious answer: Because someone interprets the GPL to say that it does. Maybe not. But if so, then why isn't the GPL+non_GPL package or the Linux CD also a work. Who gets to say what is "mere aggregation"? Is suspect it will be whoever has the most legal clout. Getting back to the dynamic-linking issue that started the case, this is not clearly discussed in any of the stuff at /. or Vidomi. Anyone know of a Moglen or RMS justification for that outrageous claim (or any well written one)? 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?pqr8pqy73e.8pq>