http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,35258,00.html
> Anthony: Some of the info about licences
> in this wired article is scary...
Alain: It sounds like GPL is no protection at all.
> Anthony: Should we go along with the FSF
> and require code to be signed over?
Alain: Anything else would be foolhardy !!!
Alain: Below are some filtered clips of the article.
---------
Mattel said it had acquired rights to cphack from the
program's original authors... But the authors released
cphack under the GNU GPL, which arguably permits
unlimited distribution of the original cphack program,
even if Mattel now owns the copyright. By exploiting
an obscure section of the United States copyright law,
Mattel may be able to sue over a potential copyright
violation, unless the authors formally -- using paper
and pen and a signature -- signed their rights over to
the FSF.
Alain: Can't get more black-and-white than that!
---------
An even more arcane loophole. A programmer might be
able to modify cphack and legally distribute the
substantially altered version as long as Mattel has
not notified him of the license change.
Alain: I am not sure about this one, but it sounds
like the MicroSloth-takeover threat rears its ugly
face again. We have to chase down the forks or let
them be.
---------
"New works made pursuant to the license at the time
before Mattel [acquired rights to cphack] present
Mattel with other difficulties," Moglen said.
Alain: This is a really heavy one. We develop FC under
FC-GPL. I use it to develop commercial products. The
group decides to sell our GPL wares to a company. Then
this company does everything it can, including
litigation, to stamp out anything else previously done
with their newly acquired technology, including me!!
---------
Mattel might be able to argue that the GPL is invalid
because users don't pay for the free software.
"Nonexclusive licenses given for free are generally
revocable, even if they purport to be irrevocable"
Alain: Gulp! Revocable BECAUSE it is free. We have a
big problem here, eh!
---------
"Even if the GPL license in cphack is treated as
signed and is covered by 205(e), it might still be
revocable by Mattel as the new owners of the cphack
copyright." "It is unfortunately not quite as solid a
case for the good guys as the GNU license theory would
have at first led us to believe," he said.
Alain: Is there nothing sacred anymore!! :(
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
