Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ben Burton wrote: 1. Can I package an LGPL library foo that links with a GPL library bar? Only if the GPL library is not required for basic operation of the LGPL library. This might be because there are non-GPL versions of the GPL library with looser licenses, or because the GPL library only provides optional features. Otherwise the LGPL library needs to be under the regular GPL. Just because something is a library, doesn't mean you can put it under the LGPL when it would otherwise have to be full GPL. If the two libraries just happen to be together, and the LGPL library will use the GPL library only if it is available, then programs that use only the LGPL library are not affected. 2. If so, is it appropriate to put a notice in the copyright file for foo that this library links with a GPL library and thus any software that links with foo must be GPL-compatible? In general you should not need to do this. Either the library depends on the GPL library (in which case it has to be full GPL) or it does not (in which case it does not matter). I suppose if you had an application program that required the optional GPL-only features from the GPL library, but accessed them through the otherwise LGPL library, that would probably require it to be GPL also.
RE: discomforting news on the code-as-speech front
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: How can you backup the dvd in analog space? Leaving out the fact you You can't. However, fortunately the argument that fair use isn't intended to apply to technologically modern media holds no water at all and is unlikely to be accepted by anybody (even this appeals court). Appeals courts always beat up whoever's presenting at the time with hypothetical arguments. As far as the 1st Amendment applying to source code and not compiled code, I don't really have a problem with that. It should be obvious how this benefits free software.
Re: Steelblue license
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Raul Miller wrote: In principle, this gives them the right to restrict use. However, since restrictions on use contradict federal copyright law, I'm dubious. So you think this portion of UCITA might be unenforceable in general then? c. Upon distribution, the source code of all modifications to the Program must be made available free of charge to TCG as specified on the Web page at http://www.steelblue.com/modifications/ . Since this is subject to change, and since we can't guarantee that everyone who has access to the source can check this URL, I'm queasy about saying this meets DFSG. So you're saying that this violates DFSG on grounds of the license not being distributed with the program. :} Hm. Well, I can't really dispute that, unless TCG could be made to agree to change it so that these terms were made part of the license rather than located on a URL. 5. TERMINATION. In the event of any default or failure of User to ... This makes 4.c., above, particularly nasty. I still don't see the problem with this clause...
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: Please let me know what you think. I think we have had this debate before :} I don't remember what the final result was, but most agreed that it is silly to place restrictions on a license agreement that are already implied by local law, as they are really beyond the scope of licensing. Who is going to be prevented from using software by a license agreement, that is already unconcerned with the law? It certainly looks as if the intent of this clause is to prevent the software author from being held liable of an end user uses it for some illegal purpose. But I don't think that would be likely, anyway, even with the modern legal climate. My particular perspective is that it *should* not make a package DFSG-unfree. Since the software cannot be used in the prohibited manner anyway, no actual freedom is restricted.
Re: Fwd: Libranet (Debian derivate) requires $10 membership
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: You may freely download and use this distribution for any purpose with the exception that you may not sell or distribute this iso image without prior permission from Libra Computer Systems Ltd. ... However, this change may be unnecessary. It's highly probably that Libranet would have a valid copyright over the iso image even if the It looks to me like Libranet is trying to confuse users and fool them into thinking that the software itself is property of Libranet. While Libranet is not claiming rights over the software itself (just the ISO image, which they do have rights to), 90% of the people that use the software won't realize this. For example, you could copy all the files on the CD into a .tar file and distribute that, but few people will realize it. All their license really prohibits is verbatim copying of the CD-ROM. I don't think the GPL really addresses the idea of licensing of a collection of software as a whole. It seems to have been designed with the premise that no matter how it was distributed, the actual GPL-licensed software would always be free. By the way, I think it would be bad for Debian if what Libranet is doing were to turn out to be illegal. Why?
Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: What is this subtle difference ? Piping is done by using both components in a bigger structure (the pipe is added by the user, not something that is provided by either application). That isn't really important - what's important is that the two programs being piped are separate works. Copyright law doesn't care about how two separate works communicate. It only covers distribution and any use that is not fair use. Also, there is no advertised interface for piping. (a pipe is just a byte stream). That doesn't really matter either - it's not the interface being advertised that creates the problem, but rather the inclusion of headers which are covered under copyright. If the interface was described in a white paper, without code being distributed, or if the headers were public domain, this would not cause a problem. However, note that the output of a program is usually subject to copyright law, so a pipe is legal if the license for the output allows usage of it. The GPL explicitely does not restrict usage. Only if the output of the program is considered a derived work. For example, a program that prints its source code would have its output covered by copyright. But a program that outputs arbitrary data does *not* place its output under the copyright of the original program. If you use a program to create a separate work, you own the copyright to it. If you use a word processor, documents you write with it are yours; if you use a compiler, copyright on the executable belongs to the owner of the source code, and if you use Acrobat Reader to print a PDF, then the copyright on the results belong to the owner of the PDF, not to Adobe. explicitely allow it. Piping is restricted, but allowed as use by all free software licenses (if you don't bundle the application and And by copyright law in general, as fair use. distribute them as a whole). Calling kernel functions is restricted, but allowed by the linux kernel license (or the other way round, by the GPL in the exception clause). Mostly this is a result of having to include some portion of the kernel or library in the program that wants to include it, as headers. This makes a derived work. Using a pipe does not create a derived work since the two programs are separate even while the pipe is being used.
UCITA bans GPL
We all know that UCITA alters the requirements for warranties on software - making free software providers responsible for providing warranties, but exempting commercial software providers from this requirement. I believe that this law could be construed as banning distribution of GPL software. This is good! As we know, it is illegal to distribute GPL software if all the freedoms (and restrictions) of the GPL cannot be distributed along with the software. The software was distributed with no warranty to current license-holders in Virginia (and any other UCITA areas) and they are required, by the GPL, to distribute the software only under the same terms that they received it under. They will not be able to do that. Anyone they distribute the software to would be required to extend warranty protection to any further recipients - which requires imposing restrictions on redistribution on them - which is, of course, prohibited. The GPL sort of makes an exception if a warranty is required by law. But I believe that one could argue that UCITA does not require a warranty in the sense that the GPL was presumably referring to - for example, if a state had a law requiring that all products must come with certain warranty provisions. In fact, UCITA does not require software distributors to provide a warranty at all. It merely states a method for disclaiming warranty that does not happen to be compatible with any known methods for distributing GPL software. This will, in effect, make it impossible to distribute the software. I think we should argue that GPL software, because of this problem, cannot be distributed at all. First, it would accomplish the goal of avoiding liability for software warranty issues; presumably Microsoft, or some other proprietary-software company, will begin suing free software authors indiscriminately. Second, it would make lawmakers (and the public) realize they have been hoodwinked - and it will make companies with a large stake in the integrity of the free software process (IBM being the most obvious) realize that they cannot have their cake and eat it, too. A few headlines along the lines of Linux banned in Virginia ought to wake people up - hopefully leading to the eventual repeal of the UCITA. Yes, this is a form of take my ball and go home. :} I would love to hear any arguments on whether this would be an effective legal strategy.
Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote: b/c executable work as written in the quoted sentence above refers to the executable work as it is being distributed, not as it exists at run-time). You're claiming here that even though Qt must be linked with kghostscript that the executing program doesn't contain Qt? The executing program isn't relevant because the GPL doesn't specify the conditions the program can be run under. It only specifies the conditions the program can be distributed under. I.e., the GPL does distinguish b/w dynamic and static linking. It doesn't even use the term linking in the terms of the license. I think it does, by implication if not directly. If you link statically with a proprietary library which is not part of the operating system then you cannot distribute under the GPL. But you can if you link dynamically, because you aren't distributing any proprietary code at all. You're just assuming that the required proprietary code will already be on the target system.
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: It doesn't matter; the GPL isn't a contract. That's good, as it restores things to their rightful order :} The owner hasn't gotten any consideration, and therefore he hasn't bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so what? What would he sue FOR? Well, I was thinking along the following lines: If the GPL is a contract, but it is held to be void, then issues could arise about the validity of free software licenses in general. Free software licenses would have to be re-crafted into some form in which the author receives consideration, and free software would quickly turn into either proprietary or public domain software, which would be bad. Since it's not a contract, that won't happen.
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Contracts require consideration to be taken as valid contracts. Mere promises are not legally enforceable. However, the right to copy the software is most certainly consideration. There is no requirement that the consideration be tangible; intangible goods are fine. This is a very interesting thought. What if you reverse it? The *author* of the software receives no consideration from the person the software is distributed to. I am suddenly very afraid of this. The GPL is also not a contract, it's a public license. This I suppose would make a difference... I hope :}
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Caspian wrote: about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in freedom talk, as RMS puts it. Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets. That's right. It's unfortunate, but I don't think it's critical. The thing is, the GPL isn't designed to prevent this. In fact it encourages it. And the evidence is that it doesn't really have any effect on the quality of the software or the distributions. So, to be blunt, I don't care. :} Crap like Corel's adults-only clause is only the tip of the iceberg. Corel claims they are merely following the law. The problem is the inconsistency in their application of it. It needs to be clarified. But it doesn't appear to be an attempt by Corel to get around the constraints of the GPL. Scratch a little deeper and you will discover a whole world of people who have bought Red Hat, Caldera OpenLinux, etc. in the stores and either A don't realize that most of it is redistributable, Do these people really exist? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm just wondering how you have gotten this impression. I haven't, from what I've seen of the redhat list (which, I admit, I haven't followed recently, but I did follow it last year, and never saw any of this sort of confusion). or B use a Red Hat variant (either made by RHAT or by someone else) that's so deeply mixed with non-free software that they'd be unable to determine what they can and cannot touch, even if they -wanted- to. Red Hat is pretty good about separating their free from their non-free software. Software that is free (not necessarily DFSG-free, but at least freely redistributable) is generally downloadable, and software that's not only comes on the CD. As of now, it is possible for anyone who wants to to mirror the entire RedHat FTP site and not violate any licensing. I don't see any evidence that Red Hat is trying to change that or even wants to. Their own utilities are all GPL, and they put money into GNOME because they found the licensing of KDE too restrictive. As far as modifying software, I think it's the responsibility of anyone that wants to do so to either contact the copyright owner or at least read the license themselves. Yes, it would be nice if the entire distribution were GPL from top to bottom, but I don't feel that it's necessary. commercial GNU/Linux dists (which are often laced with tons of non-free code, usually-- as in the case of Red Hat-- completely unsegregated from free code, and often part of the base system) assume that (just as with There is no part of Red Hat that is both non-free and required for the system to work. Caldera may be different, but Caldera has always been very commercial-software centric and in any case, they don't attempt to mislead the user into thinking the whole thing is proprietary. In any case, Caldera's target market doesn't really care. They probably should, but they don't. It's not Caldera's fault. Should Caldera shoot themself in the foot by refusing to provide software that their customers want, simply because it wasn't developed under the same premises as some other software that their customers want? Furthermore, I doubt that these freedoms will last. So few people know or care about them that what is free today probably won't be free in a few years. I disagree on that point. There are a lot of developers and users who care a very great deal. Are they in the minority? Perhaps, but it's a very significant minority. (i.e. the addition of non-free word processors and Web browsers, and Nobody can seem to make a free word processor or Web browser that anybody wants, so I can hardly fault the distributors for including non-free ones. RedHat would use a free one in preference to a non-free one (they have a strong preference for free software), but they are concerned with quality first and freedom second. don't give their friends copies, and I'd wager that the majorty, when asked for a copy of their GNU/Linux dist, would say Well, if you want a copy, you have to go to CompUSA and pay $59.95 for it like everyone else, you pirate. Again, it is not the responsibility of RedHat or the other distributors to educate their customers. RedHat specifically told me at one point that they absolutely do not mind people using their distribution for free. They are in the unique position of having a product that is a loss leader for itself. These effects are certainly not made any smaller by the proliferation of the term open source, rather than free software. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to people that NO, I am NOT an open source advocate. ESR has written very good essays on how Open Source is really a marketing program for free software. We want free software to reach as many people as possible and Open Source helps that happen. I use Open Source, the term, frequently myself simply because of
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: I think imposing additional conditions on the use of software downloaded from Corel in fact contaminates EVERY license. And while some of the It does, but Corel isn't following the DFSG, so I don't think it matters. by Corel to their licenses, I am quite convinced that the GPL forbids additional restrictions placed on how GPL'd software may be used and by whom. It does, but that isn't what Corel is doing. The GPL forbids you from preventing *others* from distributing the software. It does not require you to distribute the software to whoever wants it. If I have GPL software in my possession and I don't want to give it to you, fine. The reason doesn't matter - either you won't pay the fee, you're under 18, you don't want the software bundled with it, you don't have a beard, whatever. That is what Corel is doing, and it's allowable under the GPL. It's not traditional behavior, but it's within the terms of the license. Corel just can't tell their customers what they can do with the GPL software once they have a copy. And they haven't. Whether they have an ethical responsibility to tell their customers about this, and whether they have fulfilled that, if applicable, is subject to debate.
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Caspian wrote: However, I am under the -distinct- impression that Corel would consider anyone obtaining their distribution without agreeing to their EULA 'illegal'/'immoral', or in other words against their rules. So sad. Corel has no choice in the matter. They are stuck with it because of the GPL, which does not give them the ability to object.
Re: GPL source vs. binary
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote: Does a source that's licensed under the GPL automaticly produce a binary that can only be licensed under the GPL? If you are the author of the program, you can distribute the binary and the source under separate, even incompatible, licenses. You could distribute the binary under a conventional license and the source under the GPL. This may of course reduce the demand for the binary. Third parties using GPL'd source must distribute any binaries produced from compiling it under the GPL (which means they must distribute the source too).
Re: Is the GPL free?
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: # 3.Derived Works # # The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them # to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original # software. Something odd is going on. GPL'ed programs are free (according to the DFSG), but the GPL itself is not? The freeness of the GPL itself is irrelevant. The FSF does not want people messing with the GPL and making it broken in some way and calling it the GPL. This will confuse licensees and make the FSF look bad. As the GPL itself is not software it does not need to fall under the DFSG. In other words, the DFSG only requires that the license allow derived works of the software it covers. It doesn't require that the license allow derived works of itself. Not that the FSF seems to care, as the Artistic license claims to be a kindler, gentler version of the GPL, and nobody has objected (presumably because the Artistic license doesn't claim to *be* the GPL).
Re: GPL Question
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Matthew Simpson wrote: You are free to use and distribute any command string in the Printer Technical Reference. I double checked this with my manager. The only That seems like a pretty straightforward answer to me. What aspect of the law are you worried about violating? They don't need to put their commands under the GPL. Information such as command strings are not subject to copyright law. The only thing that is copyrighted in this case is the actual manual itself. It's much like if you buy a math textbook, you don't have to get permission from the author of the textbook to publish a scientific paper based on formulas you learned out of the book. The only way you would be restricted is if you signed an NDA regarding the information in the manual, which it appears that you did not.
