On Dec 21, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Jimen Ching wrote:
In reviewing parts of the archive, I also see that you are
confused about the terms of the GPL.
http://lists.hosef.org/pipermail/luau/2003-October/014441.html
Point in fact, if you distribute binaries of **unmodified** code
covered by the GPL, then you *must* either distribute the source
code *with* the binaries, or make a written offer,
such that **anyone** can get them for the cost of distribution.
I re-read this email, and I didn't see any statement that says
anything to the contrary. Which passage are you refering to?
You said: " You can develop a product from GPL code unmodified. Then
you have nothing to contribute back. "
But if you distribute the binaries from this (unmodified, or not) GPL
code, you MUST comply with the GPL, (which, incidentally, says
nothing about having "to contribute back".)
You said: "The people who will use the source code are developers who
want to enhance or modify the source code."
Many businesses find that having control of or even access to the
source code for their misison-critical systems is of paramount import.
If the source code is proprietary, then a "source code escrow" is
often the solution.
I could explain at least three other examples where non-developers
care. My point is, Its *not* *just* *programmers* who care.
You said: "This has always been the case with free software."
But it hasn't been. Free software is about driving a lack of
scarcity in society, not about "sharing source code among
developers". Free Software is about Freedom and Liberty,
not about "source code". What you describe is much closer to "open
source" than Free Software.
You said, "You can knowingly allow someone to violate your patent for
years and then only file a suit after a lot of money has been made
from the patent. This is usually how patents
are used."
First, IANAL. (and yes, I know the joke.)
Second, Patents are a negative right. They are used to prevent
someone from doing something.
Third, Knowingly allowing infringement in order to maximize one's
reward may subject one to a procedural lache (an equitable defense),
where one looses any right to recovery.
Essentially, coaxing or allowing a delay in enforcing one's rights
may cause the rights to be lost. In general, both parties must act
to minimize their damages, or be subjected to
less than impartial treatment at the hands of the law.
In law school, they teach, Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas
subvenit.
'Equity aids the vigilant, not the negligent (that is, those who
sleep on their rights).'
You said, "For trademark violations, if you don't protect it, you
lose it."
In general, this is true, but one can loose a trademark for any
number of reasons. You appear to be referencing trademark dilution
or genericide here, however, mere non-use (abandonment) is enough to
get your trademark canceled. (And you're talking to someone who
defended "Netgate" against AT&T over a protracted, 5 year legal battle.)
You said, "I'm not sure about copyrights. I think it falls somewhere
in the middle."
This is incorrect. You don't have to defend your copyright (unless
it is called into question), you merely file the infringement
action. Equitable latches still apply, and you may
be subject to compulsory licensing, depending on the media in which
your works take place.
The FSF only pursues GPL violators where they hold (have been
assigned) the copyright.
Again, I didn't say anything that would contradict this.
The original reads:
>And so the FSF pretty much has to go after anybody they know who
violates
>the GPL, in order to maintain it's validity?
I don't know if they have to. But I know they do... Each time I see
someone mentioning a GPL violation, I see the FSF immediately going
after
the violators.
I made a correction. The FSF does not, for example "go after" GPL
violators where they don't hold the copyright. Linux is one example.
uclibc is another.
Its also interesting to see how Scott has changed his tune over
the years: http://lists.hosef.org/pipermail/luau/2003-October/
014452.html
I re-read this email, and I don't see what tune Scott has changed.
But I haven't read much from Scott about the GPL lately. So I'll
have to take your word for it.
Scott said: " If one wishes to differentiate his product with coding
expertise, then starting with less restrictive code is probably the
better idea."
I don't think he would advance this position any longer. Its a
common mistake. Bruce Perens and esr both make it, but its incorrect.
You make a similar mistake here: http://lists.hosef.org/pipermail/
luau/2003-October/014465.html, though overall, I agree with your
position .vs Wayne, but my take is that the GPL is nothing like a
shrink wrap license (for reasons a lot like what Warren mentioned.)
Legally, the FSF has no standing without the copyright assignment.
This is why they've insisted on assignment since the beginning of
project GNU.
Its also one of the places where linux went a bit wrong.
Jim
_______________________________________________
LUAU@lists.hosef.org mailing list
http://lists.hosef.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luau
