On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:09:10 -0600, "Robert Citek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > So that we don't wander too far astray, I wan to restate my questions: > > 1) Has John Doe violated copyright law? If so, what section? No > 2) Has John Doe violated the GPL? If so, what section? No, He has used the freedoms of the GPL to create a derivative work. As long as he releases his derivative work under the GPL, he has not violated the GPL. > > On Nov 11, 2005, at 1:29 PM, AgentM wrote: > > Don't you hear stories about GPL software getting swiped into a > > different GPL project with the copyright notice changed and the > > resulting chaos?
Actually that has happened hundreds of times, just a few examples: aterm for example which is 90% rxvt code. And gcc was forked for a while into a different project, that later folded back into gcc. And look at Fluxbox, which used Blackbox code. And Xplanet used Xearth code. These are all examples of developers using the freedoms of the GPL to use free code for their projects. I am not sure that I would call this chaos, but the proliferation of software choices can be a bit daunting. The ability of anyone to fork the code of any GPL'd code including the linux kernel serves to brake the developers from making unpopular or arbitrary decisions--if Linus became suddenly very arbitrary, anyone could create a new kernel based on the linux code. Of course, they couldn't call it linux, as Linus has trademarked the term. > > No, I have not. But I'm not surprised that chaos ensued. Care to > share any links to read up about it? > > > The GPL cannot subvert copyright law- it is build upon it, as > > clearly stated. > > While I agree with you and have read the GPL, I'm not so clear on > where anything states that the GPL builds upon copyright law. Can > you point to a specific section in the GPL or elsewhere where it > states that the GPL "builds upon copyright law" or something to that > effect? Well without copyright law there would be no license to enforce. The copyright is the IP that is licensed by the GPL. The license only keeps others from taking that code and making it non-free. The GPL does require an appropriate copyright notice be afixed to the software for this reason. > > > The licensor (copyright holder) must receive modifications. > > Where is that stated in the GPL or elsewhere? > > > If anyone can name himself the copyright holder, then the GPL is > > useless. Why would you say that? If I receive GPL'd software, I can use that Code according to the GPL--that is the license under which I received that code. The derivative work would have to licensed under the GPL (assuming I decided to distribute it, of course) The GPL has preserved the freedom of the code, exactly what it was meant to do. Extraneous issues, like making sure the developers get credit for their work, although definitely part of etiquette and proper behavior, is not related to the freeedom of the code. > > But John Doe is a copyright holder. He has modified the original > source, which he is allowed to do under the GPL. Since he wrote > those changes he is the owner of them and therefore can add his > copyright. True, he does not reference (attribute) the original > copyright holder, but then he isn't required to under the GPL. > > > For example, anyone could license Linux as closed-source > > simply by swiping the copyright and relicensing, which is obviously > > not the case. No they could not--the GPL would require anyone to release derivative works under the GPL. The one exception to that would be if the work was never distributed..used in house only > > But John Doe is not swiping the copyright and relicensing. He's > added his copyright and removed my copyright notice, which he's > allowed to do under the GPL. Although he has change the copyright > notice, he is keeping the license intact, which he's required to do > under the GPL. > > But the previous paragraph is just my interpretation, which may be > incorrect. > > > If anyone- even another GPL'd project- swipes GPL code and > > reattributes the copyright to themselves and distributes- even under > > the same terms of the original license- that is a copyright violation. > > That sounds plausible, but where is that stated? > > > I found out all this by searching with Google. I am not a lawyer, but > > I am a software developer, so I informed myself. > > Are you saying "I found it on the Internet via Google, therefore it > must be true"? :) Also, laws can change, are subject to > interpretation, and can be struck down by courts. That's why I'm > asking my questions. > > I'm also asking because as users, developers, educators, and > advocates of FLOSS, we should all have at least a passing familiarity > with the GPL, other FLOSS licenses, and copyright law. > > Regards, > - Robert > http://www.cwelug.org/downloads > Help others get OpenSource software. Distribute FLOSS > for Windows, Linux, *BSD, and MacOS X with BitTorrent > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWE-LUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.cwelug.org/ > http://www.cwelug.org/archives/ > http://www.cwelug.org/mailinglist/ -- Erich Friesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html _______________________________________________ CWE-LUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.cwelug.org/ http://www.cwelug.org/archives/ http://www.cwelug.org/mailinglist/
