Quoting Andy Sy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >> Point 1: Commercial usage of other people's GPL codebases without >> distribution doesn't trigger source-access obligations. > > When I say 'code usage', I mean in the context of incorporating GPL > codebase into a product I intend to distribute. I'd have thought > that was pretty clear from the context.
Please be specific. Even here, "incorporating" can mean inclusion via means that don't involve linking, such as xml-rpc calls or CGI. Under copyright law, this would be "mere aggregation", which does not create a derivative work. Hence, licence of the GPLed code would not have to be in harmony with the other code. Besides, you're ignoring my point. You asserted that GPLed code could not be called "commercial". I listed counter-examples. > So can other people. They essentially have the same rights as > you do to the code. No, they most certainly do not. You own copyright; they do not. Therefore, you have a whole raft of rights they cannot even aspire to, including the right to issue other copies under different licences. Other people building business on your "engine" software, when they lack the legal right to create the range of derivative works that you do, should be a powerful deterrent, even if your being the world's authority on that codebase is not. Besides, you're ignoring my point. You asserted that GPLed code could not be called "commercial". I listed counter-examples. > Were we to take your view, even the Artistic License or MPL could be > considered commercial licenses. The term "commercial licence" is about as meaningless and confusing as your earlier term "closed source". But if you mean, can code issued under such licences be the subject of commerce, why, of course the answer is yes. Have you ever seen a CD for sale that includes a Perl interpreter or Mozilla code? Then you've seen them being the object of commerce. Ergo commercial. What I keep trying to tell you is that the descriptor "commercial" for a licence is a bogus category: It doesn't mean anything. What you _may_ be reaching for is the distinction between proprietary (not "closed source") and open source -- which is a distinction of fundamental type, according to whether or not maintainers can and may fork the project if necessary. Over the long term, that makes a great deal more difference than whether or not it has ever been offered as the object of commerce. > Even a public domain 'license', accdg. to your interpretation, could > also be considered commercial because it can definitely be > commercially exploitable. There is no such thing as public domain software in my country, in any meaningful sense; not sure about the Philippines (with the minor exception of software produced directly by the USA Federal government, but not that produced by contractors for it). There is no basis in law for terminating copyright prior to its term, and no software (in 2003) has existed long enough to pass into the public domain. That is, not unless you consider card decks for Jacquard looms and such to be "software". > So now I'm left wondering as to what your initial point was on > insisting on the distinction between a proprietary and commercial > license. I didn't so much "insist on the distinction" as point out that the latter category doesn't actually mean anything, in practice. Since the word "commercial" means subject to commerce, and software under any licence whatsoever may be bought and sold, any software can be logically deemed "commercial". Which means it's in practice a meaningless term. It is rapidly becoming apparent that you simply dont _like_ this fact, and therefore are persisting in ignoring it. I suggest you ignore the point, if you must do so, without tying up more of your time and mine in so doing. [snip bits where you keep repeating yourself] >>> Also note that it goes beyond just _linking_, even cut-and-paste >>> counts as 'using the code'. >> > > But only linking is GPL-significant. > > HUH? Are you trying to say I can copy-and-paste source code from > a GPL'ed code base and incorporate it in my own source code and I > am under no obligation to release the latter?!? Of course not. _Please_ be specific. You said "cut and paste"; you didn't say "cut and paste GPL-encumbered code". I inferred from context that you mean cutting and pasting _data_. I don't have time to sit and guess what you mean. This exchange has clearly wasted your time and mine. >>> What's RMS' take on this? >> >> Who cares? RMS is not a judge. His opinion is not relevant to the >> issue. > > Tsk... Rick, Rick, Rick... you're either unaware of or just choose to > ignore events. RMS has been known to flex his influence when it comes to > the interpretation of the GPL and his opinion carries weight. Young man, _whom_ do you think you're talking to? I happen to have confronted Richard M. Stallman on GPL v. 2 clause 3b interpretation in business, and prevailed. No, sir. Mr. Stallman's opinions on legal matters don't mean squat. Bupkes. Nada. Rien du tout. Now, I don't care about this soap-opera fixation with personalities. Legal questions get decided by judges in courts. Intelligent parties attempt to guess what _they_, not a programmer in Massachussetts, would proclaim on said legal matters. > Remember how his interpretation on how Linux loadable modules should > be covered by GPL constraints essentially convinced most everyone to > think the same way. Sheeh, you can't even remember Linux kernel history properly! You have that completely wrong as a matter of historical fact: Everyone considered Mr. Torvalds's pronouncement on the matter to hold more weight than the guy in Massachussets. At least the _former_ had a reasonable claim to be the primary copyright holder. You can read the relevant LKML posts here: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/proprietary-kernel-modules >> Neither does any other licence. What's your point? > > The GPL, because it tries to be too many things, ends up being more > complicated and harder to interpret than other licenses with less > ambigous provisions. Cut the bullshit, please. The GPL is shorter and simpler than most alternatives. (The two forms of the BSD licence and the similar MIT X licence are simpler.) Notwithstanding that fact, it is increasingly evident that you are not bothering to read it. > The goal/agenda behind the creation of the GPL license is to promote > the sharing and openness of source code. Now, you've changed subjects. Ascribing motives to licences _themselves_ is passing over to the transrational. The meaning of licences is inherent in their literal wording, and in surrounding copyright (and something contract) law. This other stuff is melodrama. > [1] You're saying that you can allow people to RPC or xmlrpc to your > modified GPL code (so what's the difference between doing it across > the bus vs. across a network?) and yet you are under no obligation to > release your modified sources because accdg. to you, this is not > equivalent to distributing it. I'm assuming that a judge would agree with the common-sense meaning of the term "distribute", as excluding outcomes where the user never has possession of any form of the code. Seems a reasonable starting assumption. > Now maybe RMS will one day come out and say that that should be > considered a form of distribution. Similar to how he interpreted > module loading as a form of linking. First, get clear on the fact that judges, not programmers, are the authorities on how licences will be interpreted in court. (If you have serious concerns as opposed to just bullshitting and flaming of licensing regimes you don't like, please consult a good copyright attorney. None of what I'm saying is in any way intended as legal advice to any specific person reading my posts.) Second, get clear on kernel history, concerning which you are badly misinformed. -- Cheers, Emacs is a good operating system, but I prefer Linux. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
