Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 03:23:52 -0800 From: Dave Walton <dwalton@acm.org> To: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does Linux violate the GPL? Message-ID: <20011224032352.24d6cbff.dwalton@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <axitaxt6dg.tax@localhost.localdomain> References: <20011223153232.4b562a74.dwalton@acm.org> <15398.28461.605242.845831@guru.mired.org> <axitaxt6dg.tax@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 Dec 2001 23:38:35 -0800, swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) wrote:
> P.S. I'm going to try using "publish" instead of "distribute" (the
> GPL's term) because "publishing" is a more accurate term for the
> copyright being mentioned, which 17 USC 106 ("Exclusive rights in
> copyrighted works") writes as "to distribute ... to the public".
Sounds like a good approach. It nicely clarifies your company-internal
distribution example, since that is not publishing. (Though I'm sure the
FSF would be quite happy to claim that triggers the GPL.) I'll have to
try to remember to use "publish" myself.
On 23 Dec 2001 22:39:45 -0800, swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) wrote:
> Dave Walton <dwalton@acm.org> writes:
>
> > When I wrote "use", I was thinking of something along the lines of
> > "incorporate and distribute".
>
> And when Mike wrote "use" (in "Neither BSDL nor GPL place any
> restrictions on *use* of the covered work."), he was apparently thinking
> of something along the lines of "execute" (or maybe also "incorporate
> and execute"). Let's all keep in mind that source code has many uses
> and using just "use" is likely to be ambiguous or just wrong.
I've seen people discuss "use" and "utilize" here before, but I've never
done a good job of grasping the distinction. The dictionary hasn't been
much help, either.
Note to self: Use "execute" and "publish" in the future instead of "use".
> P.S. You said in a previous post that the BSD license doesn't allow
> something. I hope you've also noticed the BSD licensors allow almost
> anything.
Yup. A nice bunch of people, on the whole. When I wrote that I was
trying to create a clear summary of the interaction of the licenses as
written, without regard to how strictly various authors do or do not
enforce the terms. Enforcement is another matter, entirely up to the
author (and which corporations tend to be more strict about than
individuals).
> I've never heard of even a polite request to stop
> infringment, let alone cease-and-desist letters and lawsuit threats.
I've heard of a few, in particularly blatant cases. But fortunately there
has been fairly little need for such actions.
> It seems to be understood by licensors and licensees alike as just a
> way to put code into the public domain with a declaimer of liability
> and request for attribution.
It's fine for licensors to have that understanding. But I would suggest
that it is, at best, bad manners for licensees to assume that is the
understanding. Without a clear statement otherwise from the licensor, one
should always treat the letter of the license as the true intent. To do
otherwise would show a serious lack of respect for the rights of the
licensor. If the intent really was pseudo-public domain then nothing is
lost by asking, but if that wasn't the intent and you don't ask things
could get unpleasant. Especially when dealing with corporations.
> Along the same lines, note that what the GPL seems to say is often
> significantly different from what GPL licensors say it says and often
> from what they insist upon (also often different things).
That's because none of them have a clue what it says anyway. What
percentage of GPL users (oops, publishers) do you suppose have actually
READ the thing?
> The guys that ignore all the fine print might have the right idea,
> since there's little that one can do about it anyway.
I loathe fine print. Which is why the BSDL so nice!
On 24 Dec 2001 00:41:10 -0800, swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) wrote:
> Dave Walton <dwalton@acm.org> writes:
>
> > 2. B decides to include S into T, but does not arrange for A to
release S
> > under GPL. This causes two violations:
> > a. B has violated the copyright of A by altering the license and
may
> > not legally use S.
>
> Except that B hasn't really altered A's license. B is likely to even
> have accompanied the derivative with a copy of the BSDL. B has merely
> deceptively labeled the whole program as being under the GPL. I don't
> know what legal sanctions, if any, there are for that deception,
> especially when notice of the other copyright and BSDL is made
> somewhere in the documentation or code.
Hmmm... I suppose that A might have some small claim, due to B's
deception regarding the licensing of S. Especially if A felt it damaged
his professional reputation for people to believe that S was under GPL, or
something like that.
> (Note that the BSDL permits
> comingling of code without notice of the owner of specific code, which
> results in it being done to an extent that such designations of owners
> is not even possible. So even without the deception, the effect would
> be much the same, namely GPL infection. :-).
Now there is a good question. Say a file contains the BSDL and some code,
and that file is included as part of a larger GPL work (ignore the
potential GPL conflict there). In the absence of any ownership
designation, wouldn't any changes made to that file have to be considered
a part of the BSDL work? I suppose that's a question only a court could
decide...
> > b. B has violated the GPL by not releasing ALL the code under GPL.
>
> In some sense, maybe, but he can't sue himself.
True, the violation would only be in spirit, since as the author of T the
GPL does not apply to B. A sufficiently fanatical contributor to T might
be able to sue on the grounds that B did not (and is unable to) provide
full GPL source to the T(+S) derivative of that contributor's work. But
that would be more of a variation on scenario 3.
> > I find it mildly entertaining that the GPL makes it so difficult to
use
> > GPL software without violating GPL. This is freedom? And given that
the
> > GPL requires an entire work to be published under GPL, even the parts
from
> > other authors, how can any license be considered "GPL-compatible"?
>
> Good question. I suppose that most GPL'ers would say it's because the
> GPL means something different than what you think it means. Like that
> "on the terms of this License" only means that the added-in code's real
> license must permit redistribution of the source (or something). ???
These are the same people you mentioned above who can't agree on what it
says in the first place.
> > But I have to wonder... Linux (among many other projects) has
borrowed
> > code from BSD. If, as I suspect, relicensing was not arranged,
doesn't
> > that mean that Linux is in violation of both the authors' copyrights
and
> > the GPL itself?
>
> Only of the GPL licensors' copyrights, it seems to me, and they'r not
> complaining. There are likely to be some violations of the BSDL's very-
> easy-to-satisfy terms, but the BSDL'ers aren't complaining either.
True, but that might be a fun tidbit to toss out when some rabid GPL'er is
going on and on about their favorite distribution of their unforked pet
OS... :)
Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Walton dwalton@acm.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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?20011224032352.24d6cbff.dwalton>