Re: [ba-unrev-talk] GPL? - Case-by-Case
Thanks. That analysis extends my understanding considerably. (01)
So what license arrangement(s) do you favor, anyway, and how
do they differ from GPL. (02)
(Note: Apologies to all for whom this discussion is old hat. I'm
just getting a bit of a handle on it now, at this late date.) (03)
"Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: (04)
> Hmm, here's a blow by blow case by case based on my understanding.
>
> -- Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
> [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Eric Armstrong
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 13:27
> To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
> Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] GPL?
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Scenario:
> Label: Part of
> Situation: A GPL word processor and spreadsheet are available
> separately, for free. An entrepreneur puts them both
> together into a single downloadable package, and
> charges for it.
>
> <orcnote: Packaging. The distro must carry the licenses still, and if the
> distro is of just the binaries there must be some prominent way of knowing
> that the source is available and how to get it. Other than that, there is
> nothing prohibited here in terms of the GPL. It is a redistribution, with
> packaging. />
>
> Scenario:
> Label: Part of, with improvements
> Situation: As above, only the entrepreneur uses the keystroke
> definition facility to create a common interface for the
> individual packages.
>
> <orcnote: The question is whether or not the definitions, macros, scripts or
> whatever constitute a derivative work. Then that would have to be GPL'd
> too. Prudent behavior: Just include the keystroke definitions and how it
> was done in the bundle along with the licenses and links to the sources of
> the bundled packages. />
>
> Scenario:
> Label: Constructed with
> Situation: A GPL tree library is used in the construction of a
> knowledge repository.
>
> <orcnote: The output produced by the GNU version of CAT or MORE or MySQL is
> not subject to the GPL. However, if there were software that included the
> library, and the library was GPLd and not LGPLd, there is an ostensible
> claim that the product must be GPL'd. Not the repository content, but the
> repository software, just to be clear. Prudent behavior: Avoid all doubt.
> Use a different library or, if possible, negotiate a different license with
> the copyright holder to permit incorporation in a proprietary solution. />
>
> Scenario:
> Label: Constructed with, after modification
> Situation: A GPL tree library is heavily hacked and modified, and
> then used in the construction of a knowledge repository.
>
> <orcnote: Under either GPL or LGPL the hacked and modified tree library is a
> derivative work and should be made available on that basis. For impact on
> the knowledge repository, see previous case,above. />
>
> I don't see anything wrong with someone adding a charge, in these
> scenarios. One can even see could that could come of it, in each
> case. (In the first example, the ability to market the items could
> greatly hasten the adoption curve.)
>
> <orcnote: There is nothing to prevent charges. However the GPL means the
> purchasers are able to redistribute the GPL'd part, with source, without any
> restriction by you. />
>
> So I wonder what the GPL aficianados will have to say...
>
> <orcnote: I don't know if I qualify here. It is not my license of choice.
> I have addressed what I believe the license requires, when used and when
> GPL-licensed works are used and modified. It is a different matter to ask a
> GPL-adherent how they think software should be provided and what their
> agendas are. />
>
> <orcnote: The key thing about the GPL as well as open-source license is that
> it does not exercise any right that is not the exclusive right of a
> copyright holder *already*. If someone claims a valid copyright on a work,
> you, even as an owner of a purchased copy, may not legally create a
> derivative work without the express permission of the copyright holder. The
> GPL, and OSI-acceptable open-source licenses basically provide, in advance,
> a non-exclusive, perpetual license to make derivative works under specific
> conditions. If you don't like the conditions, you are no worse off than
> with any commercial package that you bought, as far as copyright is
> concerned. So what you need to get your head around is that it is already
> unlawful to make derivative works of copyright-protected subject matter
> without a license. Although more than copyright is involved, read the
> licenses that your nearest software company uses concerning, for example,
> the reuse and redistribution of library code, of sample code provided with
> compilers, etc. />
>
> -- orcmid (who really loves this cyber-lawyer stuff) (05)