Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> writes:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:59:54 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Well, yes, but if I offer you the MS Visual C++ source code to package
>> for Debian, and I tell you I'll give it to you under the GPL, you'll
>> turn me down. Even though I give the relevant permissions, and it's
>> the copyright holder that does not.
>
> I'm not convinced that this is an equivalent situation...
> I could be misleaded by my opinion that software patents are an abuse
> and should not exist in the first place, but anyway I'll try and clarify
> what my position is.
But we're talking about trademarks, too. Do you think trademarks
which cover software are an abuse? What about when those trademarks
describe functional behavior, like the shape of a car or the sound of
an engine? How about the interface of a computer, like an iPod?
> If you offer me the MS Visual C++ source code under the GNU GPL license,
> *you* are doing something you cannot legally do. You are not the
> copyright holder: the real copyright holder didn't give you permission
> to distribute under the GNU GPL.
Perhaps I'm a reseller -- like CompUSA or Egghead. I sell you a copy,
and attach a note saying that I license all my copyrights to the
included work under the GNU GPL.
> IIUC, you are arguing that, similarly, ASF cannot give me permission to
> use Apache to implement one-click shopping, because ASF is not the
> patent holder and the real patent holder didn't give ASF permission to
> grant a patent license...
That's right.
> But Apache is not a program that implements one-click shopping, so it's
> not covered by that software patent, per se.
> Of course, it *can* be used as a component in a system that implements
> one-click shopping. But that is entirely different.
> In other words, that patent is unrelated to Apache.
I'm not entirely sure I believe the assertion that that is entirely
different. Your argument that it is entirely different appears
to subsist wholly in that sentence: that it is entirely different.
> The MS Visual C++ copyright is instead very much related to MS Visual
> C++ (of course).
>
> The Freeness of MS Visual C++ is indeed affected by the permissions
> granted by its copyright holder and by any holder of patents that are
> *involved* in VC++ itself.
What's this "involved"? I don't think that has a clear definition.
> The Freeness of Apache is affected by the permissions granted by its
> copyright holder and by any holder of patents that are *involved* in
> Apache itself (and one-click shopping is not, AFAIK).
How come? If it were restriction on building web sites, you'd say
that was involved, I think. If it were a restriction on frames, you'd
say that was involved. If it were a restriction on separate
menu-bars, like on Debian's own site down the side, is that involved?
Where's the line between that and a one-click shopping cart?
All of the above examples have had patents claimed on them in the last
couple years, by the way.
> Apache is Free, even if no one issued a free patent license for
> one-click shopping.
> It cannot be used to implement one-click shopping for external reasons.
> It cannot even be used to murder people, again for external reasons:
> that does not mean it isn't Free (actually this doesn't violate DFSG 6)
But I don't lose my license to Apache for murdering people with it, or
for implementing a one-click shopping license. Not even if I'm sued
for doing so. I think *that's* the difference, that Apache doesn't
run off and remove its license if I use it for these things.
The Open Somethingorother license under discussion here recently did
so, and trademark law does so too.
> I hope I clarified what I meant.
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: