Re: Re: your mail
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 01:51:29PM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote: Sorry, my goof. I shouldn't be sloppy. It's the FSF faq. Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company distribution? . As I read that, it's simply saying that the you in the FAQ can be a company, and as such internal distribution is just use and the GPL doesn't apply. That makes sense. Then again, easyco's page says: Local subsidiaries and franchisees are clearly separate business entities and considered distribution rather than use. Similarly, provision of non-GPL-compliant copies to independent contractors under non-GPL terms may constitute unpermitted distribution. When in doubt, have your attorney review your usage for compliance, or purchase a commercial QM license. There's a bit of fud in there, and a bit of sales pitch, but they seem to be leaving the boundaries in the same place as the fsf. I'm not sure. But this is where we get the interaction between copyright treaties, and national contract law (plus business practice). I've worked in companies where subsidiaries were simply a convenient accounting fiction. Internal resources were shared and not apportioned, etc (especially central computer facilities!). And our definition of an independent subsidiary is very different from yours ... As with so much of their faq, it seems to me to depend on contract law. Except the GPL is not a contract, and the law as it applies to me is very different from that which applies to them. (NB - if you were wondering why you can't email my other email address (the thewolery one), I was wondering similar things. I've sussed it's probably my anti-spam rules - damn spam! :-( Cheers, Wol This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 8272 5300, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333.
Re: Is this software really GPL?
Note: I've left Anthony Youngman's email address in the headers, but I seem to have a local problem where email to Anthony bounces. [I can work around that, using telnet, but it's a pain.] quote I strongly suggest that you read the following two web pages: http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/index.htm and the accompanying faq: http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm /quote On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:48:33PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: Yeah, those webpages are basically indicate that they haven't read the GPL and don't understand what it means at all. That's what I thought at first. Rereading it, I think those pages are OK. Basically, all they seem to say is that if you distribute under the GPL you have to supply full sources to what you distribute. -- Raul Sorry for lookout mangling my cut-n-paste - this isn't quite a proper reply ... Did you look at the thing about subsidiaries ... if you *choose* to distribute *source* to your subsidiaries, you are then *obliged* to *publish* your source to the *world*! Imho this sets off the GPL's self-destruct clause (6 and 7) with the result that you can't distribute under the GPL because you can't give your recipients the freedom to distribute to whomsoever they please ... Cheers, Wol This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 8272 5300, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333.
RE: Is this software really GPL?
Well, I'm using two different email addresses and computer systems - it's my home system that's subscribed to Debian Legal, and I was emailing from my work system ... But as I see it, they (QM) are adding an extra restriction, as proscribed by the GPL (clauses 6 and 7). If you distribute to subsidiaries, you may not stop them distributing to the world. But the GPL explicitly recognises internal distribution as a case where the GPL is not needed. QM are saying you must apply the GPL, even where the GPL itself says it does not apply. Or to word it slightly differently, you must not impose the normal rules of business confidentiality or employee contract. Actually, I think they've rewritten that section ... they pretty much said as much to me that they rewrote the web site yesterday based on previous emails I sent them. Unfortunately, I think my hard copy of the original is at home. When I get home, I'm going to compare what's there now with what was there last night. It should be interesting... Oh well, at least it proves they're open to rational argument, and my comment about SCO wasn't that justified. It's just that I tried to do exactly what they're trying to do, and I ended up being convinced it was impossible - to make sure nobody could wrest an Open Source project away from me ... TT can do it because they're trusted. MySQL can do it because they're trusted. EasyCo are trying to do it with legal finesse ... Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: Raul Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 October 2004 11:09 To: Anthony Youngman Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Is this software really GPL? On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:04:31AM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote: Sorry for lookout mangling my cut-n-paste - this isn't quite a proper reply ... And the guy who admins this system claims I should be able to email you now... so hopefully you won't have to do much more of that. Did you look at the thing about subsidiaries ... if you *choose* to distribute *source* to your subsidiaries, you are then *obliged* to *publish* your source to the *world*! The closest I can find to this is a claim that distribution to subsidiaries requires distribution under the GPL. Which seems reasonable. The most akward expression of that is: For instance, if you are a corporate IT department, and your corporation has franchisees, or locally incorporated subsidiaries, delivery to any of these would be a de facto breach of the GPL unless you also publish the full source of the application, including any changes or local customizations of the source, to an independent freely available solution. But even this doesn't say anything about having to distribute to anyone other than who you distribute to. Of course, it goes on to say: Please note that if you publish your work under the terms of the GPL, your competitors may fully use the knowledge and text you disseminate so long as they do so as permitted by the GPL. That doesn't mean you have to distribute the source to your competitors. Instead, it's pointing out that you can't prohibit employees [for example, ad subsidiaries] from distributing it to your competitors or to anyone else. If you did, you'd be violating the terms of the GPL. -- Raul This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 8272 5300, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333.
[no subject]
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:23:11AM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote: But as I see it, they (QM) are adding an extra restriction, as proscribed by the GPL (clauses 6 and 7). If you distribute to subsidiaries, you may not stop them distributing to the world. But the GPL explicitly recognises internal distribution as a case where the GPL is not needed. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I can't even find the word internal in the GPL. Sorry, my goof. I shouldn't be sloppy. It's the FSF faq. Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company distribution? . As I read that, it's simply saying that the you in the FAQ can be a company, and as such internal distribution is just use and the GPL doesn't apply. Cheers, Wol This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 8272 5300, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333.
