Hi Mikhael,
On Sunday 17 Apr 2011 16:11:24 Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> Dear Shlomi,
>
> You are very confused here, because it seems you miss the juridical
> background. I strongly suggest you to start to learn the topic in
> depth for several years before making any further comments on it.
You are right that I may be confused about it. I can try studying it to an
extent, until I know enough, but I cannot halt production for the time being.
I'd rather become a better software developer, essayist and writer (as well as
in other kinds of digital arts) than a better legal expert. That is because I
know well enough that I should avoid licensing all my original software under
the GPL or LGPL (and in case I contribute to a third-party software under a
non-permissive licence, then I almost always disclaim any rights and place myc
contributions under the Public Domain / CC0 / MIT/X11-license).
>
> The definition of "derived work" can not be a part of a license,
> because this is a legal term discussed in Copyright Law. All licenses
> stop to work if this Copyright Law stops to work. Only the court can
> decide whether some piece of code or as a whole is a derived work of
> an other piece of code (in which case it should be bound by the
> license terms of the used code. if they allow derived works at all).
> This is all license agnostic. I.e. the court's decision on whether
> something is a derived work or wholly original work will be the same
> regardless of the license used (BSDL, GPL or proprietary).
Fair enough, in that case, why did the GPL use the term "derived work",
instead of something less ambiguous and more commonly agreed upon?
If I were to use a GPLed program or library, then I agree that whatever
"derived work" I make from it is also GPLed. However, what is this elusive
"derived work" according to the law? Does including code constitutes derived
work? Does static linking constitutes a derived work? Does dynamic linking
constitutes a derived work? Are Linux system calls to the Linux kernel
constitute derived works? Are programs I execute using fork()+execve and then
do something based on their output considered derived works? If I write a
networked GPLed server, will my queries to it need to be GPLed as well?
According to my understanding of how "derived works" in respect to the GPL is
interpreted by most people, the derived works constitute of either including
code in a larger source file, or alternatively static or dynamic linking (or
similar mechanisms in other languages). But, obviously the NMAP people have
interepreted "derived work" in consideration to the GPLv2 much more radically,
and if the courts accept their interpretation, then all hell will break loose
because every program generated by a C compiler, every data file output by any
GPLed interpreters, and every program that makes a system call to the Linux
kernel will need to be distributed under a GPL-compatible licence.
If the GPL was a less ambiguous licence, it would spell exactly what can and
cannot be done with it, rather than use the uncertain "derived work" term.
>
> The developers can have their vision of how the court will act in
> each case (and document it in FAQ or other documents), but they are
> not the authority here, and the license can't really help here.
> This question is out of the license scope.
So you mean the text at the beginning of the NMAP licence does not hold water
in court.
>
> It is wrong thus to call this vision as "interpetation of a license".
> Your whole argument is wrongly based and void. It is astonishing that
> you still continue with it, even after several years.
Well, it may be an interpretation of copyright law. But since the GPL uses the
term "derived work" instead of a term, which, in the context of software, is
mroe commonly understood - it is an interpretation of the GPL, and may be
considered valid by some courts.
>
> Please don't use the screwed logic. The GPL is Free Software.
> The NMAP developers interpret the Copyright Law, not the license.
I didn't say the GPLed was not a FOSS licence. However, I said that the NMAP
people can interpret copyright so their GPLed software will no longer match
the Free Software definition.
>
> Your phrases like "violates the Free Software Definition" or "GPL
> allows such blatant misinterpretations of it" or "GPL licences are so
> vague" are more than misplaced. Please reword them to:
>
> GPL being explicit is one of the most non-vague licenses.
> Developers knowingly using GPL do not misinterpret it.
>
> Copyright Law is vague regarding some software issues (linking?).
> Developers have slightly different visions on Copyright Law.
>
If the GPL is using vague copyright law terms, then it is also, by
implication, vague.
Happy Passover!
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
P.S: for a fun link see: http://www.gplv4.org/ .
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Original Riddles - http://www.shlomifish.org/puzzles/
I started out as a BASIC programmer. Some people would say that I'm
permanently damaged. Some people are undoubtedly right.
-- Larry Wall
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
_______________________________________________
Discussions mailing list
Discussions@hamakor.org.il
http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions
