On 10/06/2011 11:41 PM, Nicola Ferralis wrote:
Glen,
Please don't feel you're under any pressure, or attack. GPL issues are
far from being clear to everybody.
I'd just like to add that I have doubts you can re-license the GPL
components (which are essentially Debian, so GPL v2), into GPL v3.
Can anybody confirm this?
Nicola
> Subject: Re: [CinCV] AV Linux and it's 'non-GPL' license
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:29:33 -0700
>
> Eeesh!
>
> Joining this list has been both uncomfortable and educational at the same
> time...is everyone greeted with such 'hospitality'?...lol
>
> OK, so what about this:
>
> AV Linux goes GPL(3) and I issue a disclaimer statement declaring which
> EXACT packages are 'non-free' but come bundled with the ISO and clearly
> state that the declared non-free packages must be removed in order to
> redistribute AV Linux...
>
> Will this appease the powers that be?
>
> In all seriousness thanks for the feedback, -GLEN
>
>
>
> >> Well I'm not a lawyer either so we have something in common!
> >
> > Hi Glen and the others,
> >
> > likewise, I'll join the club of non-lawyers discussing legal issues ;-)
> >
> > Am 05.10.2011 00:41, schrieb [email protected]:
> >> I've been distributing AV Linux like this since 2007 and ....
> >
> >> ... but I was under the impression that any derived work could be
> >> licensed
> >> outside of the GPL provided the source code of the derived work
was made
> >> available upon request.
> >
> > This impression is simply wrong. You just had the luck that no one sued
> > you.
> >
> > This matter isn't difficult.
> > Any confusion boils down to being precise with the term "derived work".
> >
> >
> > If you want to license a "derived work" *outside* the GPL, then you
need
> > to
> > negotiate with *each* contributor to the GPLed work to get you an
> > *separate*
> > usage agreement for his/her code *independent* of that code being
> > published
> > also under the GPL.
> >
> > If you can't do that, the GPL as it stands is crisp and clear.
> > *You* use GPLed content to build your derived work.
> > This implies that *you* comply to the GPL beforehand.
> > And the GPL dictates that every derived work has to be
> > *licensed again under the GPL*. End of the discussion.
> >
> >
> > This is what often is referred to as the "infectious" or "viral"
property
> > of the GPL. Other licenses (e.g. the Apache License) are deliberately
> > different and do not employ this strict ruling.
> >
> >> The 'source code' is the ISO image...
> >
> > Sorry, no.
> > Source code is source code is source code. This isn't a matter for
> > interpretation. Source code is an textual or similarly editable
> > representation from which you can re-create your whole delivery.
> >
> > There is an absolutely simple criterion: What everyone can rebuild
> > from the accessible source code, needs to be equivalent to what
> > you distribute in binary form (including all your modifications).
> >
> > Btw: that exactly was the reason why GPL doesn't play well for
> > distributing media content. That's one of the reasons, why
> > we have the CreativeCommons licenses.
> >
> >
> >> .... and of course the GPL content of Debian has it's source code
freely
> >> available as well. Regardless the icluded closed source content falls
> >> outside
> >> of the GPL and there is no law forbidding me to distribute it on
an ISO
> >> of my
> >> making providing I have the permission of the developers which I do.
> >
> > What you do here is compiling several products into a distribution.
> > That is another matter altogether. Indeed you're free to do so. The key
> > distinguishing point is if you just ship independent pieces together,
> > as opposed to combining GPLed and non-GPLed code into a new product.
> >
> > If you do the latter, the GPL rulez! But you're always free to do the
> > former (just shipping together). Just in that case you need to make
clear
> > to your users that they get content with two different licenses, and,
> > because you're distributing GPLed content as part of your distribution,
> > *you* need to make the source code for that GPLed content available.
> >
> > It doesn't suffice that you state that everyone interested can get the
> > source code from "somewhere". *You* need to provide it. The GPL-2 even
> > contains some rules on how, and how much you're allowed to charge for
> > e.g. mailing an CD with source code to a user requesting that from you.
> >
> > The GPL-2 is very outdated in that respect, indeed. If I recall
correct,
> > only the GPL-3 contains a ruling that it is sufficient to publish an
> > URL to a net server holding the full and exact source code, and that
> > you're not bound to ship floppies to some bozo in Mongolia where there
> > is no internet access. Nevertheless, even with the GPL-3, you need to
> > assure that that net server is reasonably accessible.
> >
> > To elaborate on that point: Debian doesn't keep an archive of
superseded
> > source code versions. If you e.g. base your code modifications on some
> > library in Debian/oldstable, some years ahead that basic code won't
> > be accessible from Debian anymore. If you hit an evil spirited lawyer,
> > you can get a lot of trouble consequently.
> >
> >
> > Please understand me right. I am all sympathetic with what you do!
> > Just, if there are some values at stake, commercially, I can only
> > recommend to check the legal issues with a real lawyer and to
> > make sure you're in the safe zone.
> >
> > Keep the good work up!
> > Cheers,
> > Hermann Vosseler
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cinelerra mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cinelerra mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
Indeed, once the owner has used GPLv2, unmodified sources can not be
redistributed under GPLv3. if, however, you have modified the source
CODE (not just comments or the like) you can redistribute it under
another license - provided you mention the original source.
If for some reason the original source has been taken off-line by the
original copyright holder, your off the hook because you have provided
reference to the originator.
Sure, It might be that laws and regulations in the USA disagree with
that because of protectionism, but any reasonable judge in Europe (yes,
they do exist in larger numbers, when outside the Anglo-Saxton culture)
is looking to the intend of the law instead of the exact letter.
So, still no simple answer.
Frans.
_______________________________________________
Cinelerra mailing list
[email protected]
https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
