Re: GPL flaw?
Mark Schreiber said on Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:15:33PM -0500,:
Hmm ... You sound a lot like the clueless lawyers for SCO.
> His heirs refuse to GPL-license the Fast List Interpreter package.
> Thus, Fast Lisp Interpreter is not GPLed.
Not a problem. If RMS released it under the GPL license. Anybody who
received FLI from RMS has a perpetual right under the GPL. OTOH, if
RMS never releast FLI during his life time, what exactly is the loss
to the community??
> Perhaps clause 6 should specifically state that license(s) are
> granted to all portions of a Program released under the GPL. This
> would mean
Well, this will not help you in this case .... where the claim is that
because portion X which did not belong to us was released by us,
though the entire was under the GPL, now, we revoke your license to
the whole. (That is what the SCO is saying, is it not??)
Well, in law, if *you* gave me the whole, which contained parts which
did not belong to you, (or you did not have rights to give that to
me), *you* should (1) compensate me for whatever loss I suffer (2) If
the tainted part is 'severable' from the whole, I can continue, at MY
option, to use the remaining.
(1) is not likely to be enforced where the transfer is for gratis,
except in very rare circumstances. Both (1) and (2) are *not* parts of
the law of copyright; rather, they derive from other branches of law,
like contracts.
> Perhaps I've misinterpreted the GPL,
Yes. And as SCO v. IBM shows, you are not the only one to do that.
--
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,
'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,
Ernakulam, Cochin-682018,
Kerala, India.
http://in.geocities.com/paivakil
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
Reply to:
- References:
- GPL flaw?
- From: Mark Schreiber <mark7@andrew.cmu.edu>